From b8579b47a498faab308b1cef47d3fc9ef495a655 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: 4nubianstudies Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 07:45:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] added bios, proofed blench --- content/article/blench.md | 26 +++++++++++++++----------- content/article/rilly.md | 2 +- content/author/angelikajakobi.md | 2 +- content/author/russelnorton.md | 2 +- content/issue/dotawo7.md | 2 +- 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/article/blench.md b/content/article/blench.md index 107f426..a427eb8 100644 --- a/content/article/blench.md +++ b/content/article/blench.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- title: "Morphological Evidence for the Coherence of East Sudanic" authors: ["rogermblench.md"] -abstract: "East Sudanic is the largest and most complex branch of Nilo-Saharan. First mooted by Greenberg in 1950, who included seven branches, it was expanded in his 1963 publication to include Ama (Nyimang) and Temein and also Kuliak, not now considered part of East Sudanic. However, demonstrating the coherence of East Sudanic and justifying an internal structure for it have remained problematic. The only significant monograph on this topic is Bender1 which uses largely lexical evidence. Bender proposed a subdivision into Ek and En languages, based on pronouns. Most subsequent scholars have accepted his Ek cluster, consisting of Nubian, Nara, Ama, and Taman, but the En cluster (Surmic, E. Jebel, Temein, Daju, Nilotic) is harder to substantiate. Rilly has put forward strong arguments for the inclusion of the extinct Meroitic language as coordinate with Nubian. In the light of these difficulties, the paper explores the potential for morphology to provide evidence for the coherence of East Sudanic. The paper reviews its characteristic tripartite number-marking system, consisting of singulative, plurative, and an unmarked middle term. These are associated with specific segments, the singulative in *t-* and plurative in *k-* as well as a small set of other segments, characterized by complex allomorphy. These are well preserved in some branches, fragmentary in others, and seem to have vanished completely in the Ama group, leaving only traces now fossilized in Dinik stems. The paper concludes that East Sudanic does have a common morphological system, despite its internal lexical diversity. However, this data does not provide any evidence for the unity of the En languages, and it is therefore suggested that East Sudanic be analyzed as consisting of a core of four demonstrably related languages, and five parallel branches which have no internal hierarchy." +abstract: "East Sudanic is the largest and most complex branch of Nilo-Saharan. First mooted by Greenberg in 1950, who included seven branches, it was expanded in his 1963 publication to include Ama (Nyimang) and Temein and also Kuliak, not now considered part of East Sudanic. However, demonstrating the coherence of East Sudanic and justifying an internal structure for it have remained problematic. The only significant monograph on this topic is Bender's *The East Sudanic Languages,* which uses largely lexical evidence. Bender proposed a subdivision into Ek and En languages, based on pronouns. Most subsequent scholars have accepted his Ek cluster, consisting of Nubian, Nara, Ama, and Taman, but the En cluster (Surmic, E. Jebel, Temein, Daju, Nilotic) is harder to substantiate. Rilly has put forward strong arguments for the inclusion of the extinct Meroitic language as coordinate with Nubian. In the light of these difficulties, the paper explores the potential for morphology to provide evidence for the coherence of East Sudanic. The paper reviews its characteristic tripartite number-marking system, consisting of singulative, plurative, and an unmarked middle term. These are associated with specific segments, the singulative in *t-* and plurative in *k-* as well as a small set of other segments, characterized by complex allomorphy. These are well preserved in some branches, fragmentary in others, and seem to have vanished completely in the Ama group, leaving only traces now fossilized in Dinik stems. The paper concludes that East Sudanic does have a common morphological system, despite its internal lexical diversity. However, this data does not provide any evidence for the unity of the En languages, and it is therefore suggested that East Sudanic be analyzed as consisting of a core of four demonstrably related languages, and five parallel branches which have no internal hierarchy." keywords: ["East Sudanic", "Nilo-Saharan", "comparative linguistics"] --- @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ The majority of languages she uses to exemplify this principle would now be clas These affixes are certainly present in East Sudanic languages along with others. Many languages also permit gemination or consonant doubling. The origins of gemination in suffixes remains in doubt, but may arise from resuffixing, just as long consonants in Niger-Congo can arise from reprefixing in noun class languages. Moreover, nominals in East Sudanic can allow “affix-stacking,” the addition in sequence of one or more affixes as part of historical stratification. -The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of germination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308] +The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308] [^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article." [^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* 176, 181. @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ Nubian demonstrates strong evidence for tripartite number marking in nouns. Jako [^401]: Data from Jakobi & Hamdan, "Number Marking on Karko Nouns." -However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes. +However, the majority of suffixes denote plurals (**Table 10**). The majority seem to be allomorphs of the singulative suffix, thus *ɖ ~ Vl ~ Vr,* with a distinct second set, *Vɲ ~ Vŋ*. The suffix *-Vnd* may be a composite of the nasal and alveo-dental suffixes. | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ Nyima covers two related languages, Nyimang and Afitti, now usually known as Ama | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| person, pl. people | wodáŋ | wàá | +| person, [pl]({sc}) people | wodáŋ | wàá | | child | wodéŋ | ɖúriŋ | **~~Table 14. Suppletive plural forms in Ama~~** @@ -320,7 +320,9 @@ Otherwise the loss of most plural marking is very marked in comparison with rela [^405]: Data from Bender, “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” -Despite their lexical affinity to the Ek branch, Nyima languages have all but lost their indicative noun morphology. However, as Norton1 observes, the characteristic *t/k* alternations are well preserved in the verbal system in the distinction between factative and progressive. **Table 16** exemplifies this alternation. +Despite their lexical affinity to the Ek branch, Nyima languages have all but lost their indicative noun morphology. However, as Norton observes,[^a6] the characteristic *t/k* alternations are well preserved in the verbal system in the distinction between factative and progressive. **Table 16** exemplifies this alternation. + +[^a6]: Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs"; ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md). | Gloss | Factative | Progressive | | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -362,7 +364,7 @@ Descriptions of the morphology of Taman languages are very limited. Kellermann p [^407]: Data from Kellermann, *Eine grammatische Skizze des Tama auf der Basis der Daten von R.C. Stevenson.* -As with other East Sudanic languages, once allomorphy is taken into account, number-marking affixes are quite reduced. Tama has *-t, -k,* *-(V)N,* and an underspecified vowel. No examples of synchronic tripartite number marking are given, but the use of *-t* in the singulative and the “moveable” *-k* all point to this as a formerly operating. The underspecified *V* in *-VC* suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages. +As with other East Sudanic languages, once allomorphy is taken into account, number-marking affixes are quite reduced. Tama has *-t, -k,* *-(V)N,* and an underspecified vowel. No examples of synchronic tripartite number marking are given, but the use of *-t* in the singulative and the “moveable” *-k* all point to this as formerly operative. The underspecified *V* in *-VC* suffixes suggests compounding, as in other East Sudanic languages. ## Surmic @@ -530,10 +532,12 @@ Shatt and Laggori at least have considerable diversity of surface affixes markin [^t26]: Data from Boyeldieu, *La qualification dans les langues africaines.* -Boyeldieu also lists a significant number of irregular forms. There are three classes of noun, those with alternation, and those with singulatives and those with plurals. It appears there are now no examples of three-way contrast. Despite the surface variety, allomorphy suggests there are five underlying affixes, *-N, -T, -K, -y,* and *-V* where *V* is a high back vowel. In addition, the -x suffix may an allophone of an underlying fricative, i.e., *-S* (*s ~ z*) which would give Daju a complete set of East Sudanic affixes. Some singulative suffixes, such as *-zɨnɨc,* illustrate multiple compounding. There are, however, no examples of gemination. +Boyeldieu also lists a significant number of irregular forms. There are three classes of noun, those with alternation, and those with singulatives and those with plurals. It appears there are now no examples of three-way contrast. Despite the surface variety, allomorphy suggests there are five underlying affixes, *-N, -T, -K, -y,* and *-V* where *V* is a high back vowel. In addition, the *-x* suffix may an allophone of an underlying fricative, i.e., *-S* (*s ~ z*), which would give Daju a complete set of East Sudanic affixes. Some singulative suffixes, such as *-zɨnɨc,* illustrate multiple compounding. There are, however, no examples of gemination. The alternating nominal suffixes of Dar Daju described by Aviles present a far simpler set.[^417] Every noun has one of four singular suffixes. Aviles calls these “classificatory” although they have no obvious semantic association. These alternate with four plural suffixes, although these all appear to be allomorphs of *-ge* (**Table 27**). +[^417]: Aviles, *The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.* + | Class | Gloss | [sg]({sc}) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1 | elder | ɉam-ne | @@ -575,9 +579,9 @@ If we presume the same processes of allomorphy as elsewhere in East Sudanic, the ### East Nilotic -The only survey of East Nilotic lexicon reamins Vossen's,[^419] and this can provide an impression of number marking morphology, although descriptions of individual languages provide more detail. For example, Kuku has unmarked nominals, with singulatives in some cases, and plurals, both suffixed. **Table 29** shows examples of the main number-marking strategies in Kuku. +The only survey of East Nilotic lexicon remains Voßen's,[^419] and this can provide an impression of number marking morphology, although descriptions of individual languages provide more detail. For example, Kuku has unmarked nominals, with singulatives in some cases, and plurals, both suffixed. **Table 29** shows examples of the main number-marking strategies in Kuku. -[^419]: Vossen, *The Eastern Nilotes.* +[^419]: Voßen, *The Eastern Nilotes.* | Gloss | Affix | [sg]({sc}) | Affix | [pl]({sc}) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -653,7 +657,7 @@ A feature of East Sudanic, and indeed Nilo-Saharan more generally, is extensive **~~Table 32: Allomorphs of East Sudanic nominal affixes~~** -**Table 33** shows the presence or absence of individual affixes in individual branches, together with affix-stacking and gemination, as well as the table which supports this analysis. +**Table 33** shows the presence or absence of individual affixes in each branch, together with affix-stacking and gemination, as well as the table which supports this analysis. | Branch | -T | -K | -N | -V | -S | Affix stacking | Gemination | Reference | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -724,7 +728,7 @@ Aviles, Arthur J. ![*The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language. Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian."](bib:9926e196-3eea-4b7c-856c-6272d4386c75) *Sudan Notes and Records* 7 (1975): pp. 1–36. -Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Unpublished manuscript. Carbondale: SIU, 2003. +Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003. Bender, Lionel M. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): pp. 139-150. diff --git a/content/article/rilly.md b/content/article/rilly.md index ed08d50..b89f208 100644 --- a/content/article/rilly.md +++ b/content/article/rilly.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ --- -title: "Personal Markers in Meroitic" +title: "Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic" authors: ["clauderilly.md"] abstract: "please provide an abstract" keywords: ["Meroitic", "Meroe", "Kush", "Napata", "pronouns", "Egyptian", "decipherment", "verbal morphology", "pronominal morphology", "person", "comparative linguistics", "Old Nubian", "Nobiin", "Andaandi", "Ama", "Nara", "Taman", "Mattokki", "Karko"] diff --git a/content/author/angelikajakobi.md b/content/author/angelikajakobi.md index 32771d5..f609baf 100644 --- a/content/author/angelikajakobi.md +++ b/content/author/angelikajakobi.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ title: Angelika Jakobi # Biography -Something about the author. \ No newline at end of file +Angelika Jakobi holds a PhD in African linguistics from Hamburg University. Based on extensive periods of linguistic field work in Sudan and Tchad, her research has focused on some languages of the northeastern branch of Nilo-Saharan, particularly Fur, Nyima, Zaghawa, and Nubian. She is the author of *The Fur Language* (1990) and the compiler and annotator of the bibliography *The Nubian Languages* (1993, with Tanja Kümmerle). She has also published a study of the Saharan language Zaghawa, *Grammaire du beria* (2004, with Joachim Crass). In her articles she has explored aspects of semantics, morphosyntax, transitivity, grammatical relations, and case as well as historical-comparative issues. Although she has retired from her last position at Cologne University in 2016, she is still actively engaged in research. diff --git a/content/author/russelnorton.md b/content/author/russelnorton.md index b650827..c758ecf 100644 --- a/content/author/russelnorton.md +++ b/content/author/russelnorton.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ title: Russel Norton # Biography -Something about the author. \ No newline at end of file +Russell Norton is a Senior Lecturer in linguistics at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria and a linguistics consultant at SIL International. He is the author of several articles on various Eastern Sudanic and Niger-Congo languages, and former editor of *ccasional Papers in the study of Sudanese Languages.* His research interests include the documentation, description, history and ecology of languages of Nigeria and Sudan. diff --git a/content/issue/dotawo7.md b/content/issue/dotawo7.md index 680fcc7..08878df 100644 --- a/content/issue/dotawo7.md +++ b/content/issue/dotawo7.md @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Although Bender, Rilly, and Dimmendaal include the Nyima languages within NES,[^ ### The Inclusion of Meroitic -Finally, the inclusion of Meroitic in NES has long been a point of contention owing to our fragmentary comprehension of the language.[^a9] In this respect, the work of Claude Rilly represents an enormous leap forward in our understanding, which can now with relatively strong certainty be classified as Nilo-Saharan, in particular Northern East Sudanic.[^a11] His contribution ["Personal Markers in Meroitic”](article:rilly.md) provides for the first time a systematic overview of person marking in Meroitic, no doubt opening up further avenues in comparative Northern East Sudanic linguistics. +Finally, the inclusion of Meroitic in NES has long been a point of contention owing to our fragmentary comprehension of the language.[^a9] In this respect, the work of Claude Rilly represents an enormous leap forward in our understanding, which can now with relatively strong certainty be classified as Nilo-Saharan, in particular Northern East Sudanic.[^a11] His contribution ["Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic”](article:rilly.md) provides for the first time a systematic overview of person marking in Meroitic, no doubt opening up further avenues in comparative Northern East Sudanic linguistics. [^a1]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* p. 130. [^a2]: Bender, *The East Sudanic Languages,* p. 1. From d03f4da272c5f665b207a4ce0d4e1d0c1eab80af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: 4nubianstudies Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 08:34:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] corrected norton + added bib links --- content/article/norton.md | 108 +++++++++++++++++---------------- content/author/russelnorton.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/article/norton.md b/content/article/norton.md index ae98556..3ae24df 100644 --- a/content/article/norton.md +++ b/content/article/norton.md @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Ama is a North Eastern Sudanic language spoken in villages to the west and north [^1]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language* and “A survey of the phonetics and grammatical structure of the Nuba Mountain languages with particular reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ,” 40: p. 107. [^2]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* §4. -Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels ɪɛaɔʊ and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**. +Ama examples unless otherwise stated are from the author’s fieldwork verified with leading Ama writers who oversee literacy in the language. For vowels, I distinguish five –ATR brassy vowels *ɪɛaɔʊ* and five +ATR breathy vowels *ieəou,* as represented fluently by Ama writers using five vowel letters {aeiou} and a saltillo {ꞌ} in breathy words. For tone, Ama’s nearest relative Afitti has been described as having two contrastive tone levels,[^3] but Ama has three levels, which play a role in the verb system as well as the wider lexicon as shown in **Table 1**. [^3]: de Voogt, “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology,” p. 47. @@ -40,9 +40,11 @@ A brief overview of Ama morphosyntax can be gained by locating it in the typolog **~~Table 2. Ama morphosyntax~~** +In the remaining sections, we will examine Ama's verb syntax ([2](#syntax)), verb stems ([3](#3)) and verb affixes ([4](#4)) from a comparative perspective, followed by a conclusion ([5](#5)). + # The Syntax of Ama Verbs {#syntax} -Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan languages. It has SOV word order, although as we shall see, Ama is not strictly verb-final. It also has coverbs that occur with an inflecting light verb. As in Tama,[^8] most Ama verbs take their own inflections but coverbs are also seen quite frequently. Many Ama coverbs fit Stevenson’s characterization that the coverb occurs before the light verb stem *ɕɪɛ* “do/say” and is either an ideophone (with marked phonology such as reduplication or non-mid tone) or a word marked by the suffix *-ɛ̄n* (typically a borrowed verb).[^9] The form of the Ama coverb suffix *-ɛ̄n* matches the Fur co-verb suffix *-ɛn* ~ *-ɛŋ*.[^10] The transitivity of the predicate is distinguished in Ama by the tone on the light verb *ɕɪ̀ɛ̄/ɕɪ́ɛ̄*. +Ama verbs follow a syntax that is partly familiar from other Nilo-Saharan languages. It has SOV word order, although as we shall see, Ama is not strictly verb-final. It also has coverbs that occur with an inflecting light verb. As in Tama,[^8] most Ama verbs take their own inflections but coverbs are also seen quite frequently. Many Ama coverbs fit Stevenson’s characterization that the coverb occurs before the light verb stem *ɕɪɛ* “do/say” and is either an ideophone (with marked phonology such as reduplication or non-mid tone) or a word marked by the suffix *-ɛ̄n* (typically a borrowed verb).[^9] The form of the Ama coverb suffix *-ɛ̄n* matches the Fur coverb suffix *-ɛn* ~ *-ɛŋ*.[^10] The transitivity of the predicate is distinguished in Ama by the tone on the light verb *ɕɪ̀ɛ̄/ɕɪ́ɛ̄*. [^8]: Dimmendaal, “Introduction” to *Coding Participant Marking,* pp. 6–7. [^9]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 174. @@ -101,7 +103,7 @@ The adjoined relative clause strategy means that verbs tend not to occur in noun Nevertheless, the adjoined relative clause strategy is an innovative feature of Ama that tends to place information about participants outside the noun phrase where they are mentioned. A similar distribution applies to the expression of number. Within the noun phrase, there are no number affixes, although there is a plural specifier *ŋɪ̄* or *ɡɪ̄* that can be used with rational nouns as seen in (6). Speakers consulted assess this specifier the same way as unmarked relative clauses within the noun phrase: acceptable, but not used much. However, Ama also has a post-verbal quantifier *ɡàɪ̀* that can be used when there is a plural participant in the clause, as shown in (7).[^14] -[^14]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 176, claims that “GAI gives the idea of completion, going on till an act is finished,” although all his examples involve a plural subject "they” His claim suggests that this quantifier may have a collective function, over all participants and/or over all the stages in the completion of the event. It can nevertheless appear in the same clause as distributive marking *-ɪ́d̪,* as in an example shown in Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” p. 83, *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄ ɡàɪ̀* "the child saw each of the children [until she had seen them all].” +[^14]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 176, claims that “GAI gives the idea of completion, going on till an act is finished,” although all his examples involve a plural subject "they.” His claim suggests that this quantifier may have a collective function, over all participants and/or over all the stages in the completion of the event. It can nevertheless appear in the same clause as distributive marking *-ɪ́d̪,* as in an example shown in Norton, “Number in Ama verbs,” p. 83, *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄ ɡàɪ̀* "the child saw each of the children [until she had seen them all].” {{< gloss "(6)" >}} {r} Plural noun phrase specifier (elicited) @@ -117,7 +119,7 @@ Nevertheless, the adjoined relative clause strategy is an innovative feature of We will return to this tendency to express relative clauses and number late in the clause after considering other evidence from verb stems. -# Ama Verb Stems +# Ama Verb Stems {#3} Stevenson discovered the existence of two stems of each Ama verb.[^15] The forms of the two stems are not fully predictable from each other in general, and their usage depends on aspect. @@ -125,7 +127,7 @@ Stevenson discovered the existence of two stems of each Ama verb.[^15] The forms ## The Factative–Progressive Distinction -The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite and indefinite aspect, and relabeled as perfective and imperfective by more recent authors. However, the usage of the former stem meets the definition of “factative,”[^16] such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked.[^17] The factative–progressive analysis is helpful when we consider the history of these stems below. +The aspectual functions of the two stems were described by Stevenson as definite and indefinite aspect, and relabeled as perfective and imperfective by more recent authors. However, the usage of the former stem meets the definition of “factative,”[^16] such that it has a past perfective reading when used for an active verb like “eat,” but a present continuous reading when used for a stative verb like “know.” The other stem has a present progressive reading, which is marginal for stative verbs (as indicated by "?") where the meaning contribution of progressive to an already continuous verb is highly marked.[^17] The factative–progressive analysis is helpful when we consider the history of these stems below. [^16]: Welmers, *African Language Structures,* pp. 346, 348. [^17]: Compare Mufwene, “Stativity and the Progressive,” where it is argued that progressive is a stativizing category in a number of European and Bantu languages, although progressive verb forms typically have a more transient interpretation, and lexical statives a more permanent interpretation. @@ -221,7 +223,7 @@ A longer list of examples of this alternation shown in **Table 8** was documente T and K are well-known markers of singular and plural in Nilo-Saharan languages,[^21] but in Ama and Afitti where there is no T/K morphology on the noun, essentially the same alternation (*\*t* becomes dental in the Nyima branch)[^22] is found on the verb. It also cuts into the characteristic CVC verb root shape, implying that it is an innovation on the verb. I therefore propose that this class of verbs attests the Nyima cognate of the wider Nilo-Saharan T/K alternation. This entails a chain of events in which the T/K alternation first moved from the noun (singular/plural) to the verb (singulactional/pluractional), and then shifted in meaning from verbal number to verbal aspect (factative/progressive). -[^21]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* pp. 115, 132; Bryan, “The T/K Languages"; Gilley, “Katcha Noun Morphology,” §2.5, §3, §4. +[^21]: Greenberg, *The Languages of Africa,* pp. 115, 132; Bryan, “The T/K Languages"; Gilley, “Katcha Noun Morphology,” §2.5, §3, §4; ![Blench, this issue](article:blench.md). [^22]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 299. Both steps in this proposed chain are indeed plausible cross-linguistically. As to the first step, the possibility of nominal plural markers being extended to verbal pluractionals is familiar from Chadic languages, where the same formal strategies such as first-syllable reduplication or *a*-infixation may be found in plural nouns and pluractional verbs.[^23] In the Nyima languages, the productive innovation at this step appears to have been the extension of singulative T to a verbal singulactional marker. This is seen in the fact that *t̪-* alternates with other consonants as well as *k* in Ama (*t̪ān-ɛ̄/wɛ̄n* “talk,” *t̪ɛ̀l-ɛ̄/wɛ̄ɛ́n* “see,” *t̪àl/tām* “eat”), or is prefixed in front of the root (*t̪ʊ́-wár-ɔ̄/wār* “want,” *t̪ī-ŋīl-ē/ŋɪ̄l* “laugh,” *t̪ì-fìl-è/fɪ̄l* “dance,” *t̪ū-mūs-ò/mús-èɡ* “run,” *t̪ʊ̄-máɪ́/máɪ́* “know,” *t̪-īlm-ò/ɪ́lɪ́m* “milk”). There is also external evidence from Nubian and Nara cited in **Table 6** above that *\*k* is the original initial consonant in *\*kal* “eat” replaced by *t̪-* in Ama and Afitti. @@ -230,7 +232,7 @@ Both steps in this proposed chain are indeed plausible cross-linguistically. As As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect is supported by semantic affinity between pluractional and progressive. Progressive aspect often entails that a process that is iterated ("is coughing," "is milking") over the interval concerned.[^24] In Leggbo,[^25] a Niger-Congo language, the progressive form can have a pluractional reading in some verbs, and conversely, verbs that fail to form the regular progressive *C# → CC-i* because they already end in *CCi* can use the pluractional suffix *-azi* instead to express progressive aspect. In Spanish,[^26] a Romance language, there is a periphrastic paradigm between progressive (*estar* “be” + gerund), frequentative pluractional (*andar* “walk” + gerund), and incremental pluractional (*ir* “go” + gerund). The two Spanish pluractionals have been called “pseudo-progressives,” but conversely one could think of progressive aspect as pseudo-pluractional. What is somewhat surprising in Ama is that progressive stems, being morphologically more basic (see **Table 5**), lack any devoted progressive affixes that would have formerly served as pluractional markers.[^27] However, some progressive marking is found in irregular alternations that reveal former pluractional stems. -[^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains. +[^24]: Newman, “Pluractional Verbs” notes a separate affinity between pluractional and habitual aspect found in Niger-Congo and Chadic languages. Smits, *A Grammar of Lumun, Vol. 2,* §13, identifies habitual pluractionals in a Niger-Congo language of the Nuba Mountains. [^25]: Hyman & Udoh, “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.” [^26]: Laca, “Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.” [^27]: See, however, §4.2 below which purports to recover the missing extension. @@ -238,7 +240,7 @@ As to the second step, the prospect of verbal number shifting to verbal aspect i In *t̪àl/tām* “eat,” the final *l/m* alternation is unique to this item in available word lists, although *l/n* occurs elsewhere (*kɪ́l/kín* “hear,” *t̪ɛ̀l-ɛ̄/wɛ̄ɛ́n* “see”). The final *l/m* alternation is nevertheless also found in Afitti (*t̪ə̀lɔ̀/tə̀m* “eat”) and in Kordofan Nubian (*\*kol ~ kel/\*kam* “eat”).[^28] Kordofan Nubian *\*kam* is used with a plural object, a pluractional function, so in the Nyima branch the proposed shift pluractional → progressive derives the progressive function of final m found in Ama, just as it does for the initial *k* in *t̪/k* alternations or the *t* in *t̪àl/tām* “eat.” Furthermore, a final plosive in Old Nubian (ⲕⲁⲡ-[^29]; Nobiin *kab-*) suggests that the unique *m* in “eat” arose by assimilation of the final nasal (realized as *n* in the other Ama verbs mentioned) to a following *\*b*, that was fully assimilated or incorporated in Old Nubian. [^28]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 478. -[^29]: Ibid; Old Nubian also attests the lateral in a hapax form κⲁⲗ-. +[^29]: Ibid; Old Nubian also attests the lateral in a hapax form ⲕⲁⲗ-. Seen in this light, the significance of moving T/K morphology onto verbs in the Nyima branch is that it renewed an existing system of irregular singulational/pluractional alternations. We then have a tangible account of where Ama’s missing noun morphology went, because formerly nominal morphology is found on the verb instead. @@ -293,7 +295,7 @@ A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã langu {r} “The people are many.” (“There are many people.”) {{< /gloss >}} -# Ama Verbal affixes +# Ama Verbal affixes {#4} Research over the past century has also been gradually clarifying the complex morphological system of Ama verbs.[^32] Factative and progressive aspect are distinguished in the affix system as well as in stems, and there is an evolving portfolio of pluractional affixes. @@ -380,7 +382,7 @@ Ama has extensions that fall within the family of pluractionals that associate p Ama has a distributive suffix *-ɪ́d̪* that marks incremental distribution of an event over time or over participants (*àɪ̀ bā fʊ̄rā mʊ̄l t̪àl-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̀* "I ate until I had eaten five rabbits," *wùd̪ēŋ bā dɔ̄rɛ̄ŋ t̪ɛ̀l-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄* "The child saw each of the children").[^35] Called “plural” in earlier works, it is remarkable that this category was largely unaffected by the shift of pluractional → progressive analyzed in [3.3](#tk) above,[^36] indicating that we are dealing with two distinct pluractionals, a distributive pluractional and another former pluractional that is now progressive. Ama has a second distributive suffix *-r* used only on verbs with the theme vowel *-a* (*wāɡ-ā* "keep," distributive *wāɡ-ɪ́d̪-ā-r*).[^37] Ama’s immediate relative Afitti has a “verbal plural” suffix *-tər,*[^38] which corresponds to Ama *-ɪ́d̪* and *-r* combined, reminiscent of their use in that order in Ama on verbs with the theme vowel *-a,* but regularized to all verbs in Afitti. The Ama suffix *-ɪ́d̪* also closely resembles a “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* in the nearby Eastern Sudanic language Temein,[^39] and a “plurality of action” suffix *-íd* in Midob.[^40] The distributive suffix *-ij* in Kunuz Nubian is also similar.[^41] [^35]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77, 83. -[^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-ven-du-dir) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*. +[^36]: I say the distributive is “largely” unaffected by the shift from pluractional to progressive because a dental plosive appears to have been co-opted in the progressive ventive suffix, as in *dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́-n-ɪ̄ɡ/dɪ̀ɟ-ɪ́d̪-ɛ̄n-ɛ̀ɡ* (throw-[ven-du-dir]({sc})) "threw to"/"is throwing to” as the dental plosive is the only difference with the factative ventive suffix *-ɪ́*. [^37]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 81. [^38]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903, which also shows a similar plural object suffix *-to*. [^39]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 187, where *ɨ* is used in the same way as contemporary *ɪ*. Tone was not recorded. @@ -398,9 +400,9 @@ Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural partic | 1 | gloss | 2 | gloss | 3 | gloss | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -| ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc} milk | kaɲál | he/she milks | -| kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc} milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc} milk | -| kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we (pl.) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc} milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc} milk | +| ɡə́-ɡaɲal | I milk | é-ɡaɲal | you [sg]({sc}) milk | kaɲál | he/she milks | +| kó-ɡaɲal | we (du.) milk | ó-ɡaɲál | you [du]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲál-i | they [du]({sc}) milk | +| kó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | we (pl.) milk | ó-ɡaɲa-tr̀ | you [pl]({sc}) milk | ɡaɲá-tər-i | they [pl]({sc}) milk | **~~Table 13. Afitti pluractional *-t(ə)r* not used with dual subjects~~** @@ -414,14 +416,14 @@ The confirmation of distributive markers across Nubian, Nyima, and Temein implie [^50]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md). Jakobi points that the other very similar suffix *-íd* in Midob cannot be reconstructed to proto-Nubian from just one Nubian language, so appears to be an innovation, and her observation of its similarity to the Ama suffix clearly suggests borrowing into Midob from Ama’s ancestor or another related language. Hence, the reconstructable pluractional **[i]ɟ* is more viable as the historic cognate of the Ama suffix. [^51]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 303-304. -### Second Historic Pluractionals +### Second Historic Pluractional Ama’s second distributive suffix *-r* corresponds to the Nubian plural object marker *\*-er,*[^52] and since this suffix is much less productive in Ama, it may well have been bleached of its original meaning. In the Kordofan Nubian language Uncu, the cognate extension *-er* has the same function as the irregular pluractional stem *(kol/)kom* “eat,” as both occur with plural objects.[^53] Similarly in Ama, some trills shown below occur in the same category as the irregular progressive stem *(t̪àl/)tām* “eat,” providing evidence that the trill originally marked the second Nyima pluractional that is now progressive. [^52]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md). [^53]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language.” -The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (*swāy-ɔ́* “was cultivating” → *swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́* “was unexpectedly cultivating”, where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (*sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* “search (du.)”),[^54] providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with *-ar* after the negative particle *fá* as shown in **Table 14** below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker *à-* on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without *-ar*, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with *-ar* unless the short stem is suppletive (*t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ* “sleep,” t̪àl/*tām* “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect. +The Ama suffix *-ar* can be added to a progressive verb as a mirative that marks unexpected events (*swāy-ɔ́* “was cultivating” → *swāy-ɔ̄r-ɔ́* “was unexpectedly cultivating,” where the vowel has harmonized to the following vowel). However, this suffix is also used to disambiguate progressive verb forms from otherwise indistinguishable factatives (*sāŋ-ɛ̄n/sāŋ-ɛ̄n, sāŋ-ār-ɛ̄n* “search [du]({sc})”),[^54] providing what looks like an alternate progressive stem to take the dual suffix. Similarly, the negative imperative construction in Ama requires a progressive stem with *-ar* after the negative particle *fá* as shown in **Table 14** below. Inflections occurring in this construction are a plural subject marker *à-* on the particle, and dual or distributive marking on the verb. Only the dual suffix can occur without *-ar*, where in my data the dual suffix adds to the longer stem with *-ar* unless the short stem is suppletive (*t̪ī-ə̀/túŋ* “sleep,” t̪àl/*tām* “eat”) and can take the dual suffix without ambiguity with factative aspect. [^54]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 40. @@ -454,7 +456,7 @@ The trill thus fuses with certain vowels that behave like theme vowels for creat ### Innovative Dual-Participant Pluractional -A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*.[^58] The older form of the Ama dual suffix is *-ɪn,*[^59] which has been noted to resemble reciprocal suffixes in other Eastern Sudanic languages, such as Kordofan Nubian *-in*, Daju *-din*, Temein *-ɛ*, and also Ik *-in* of the Kuliak group.[^60] In Ama, its function has evolved to dual reciprocal and other dual participant readings, so for example *wʊ̀s-ɛ̄n* “greet (du.)” can refer to when two people greeted each other, or someone greeted two people, or two people greeted someone.[^61] The dual suffix is regularly used in Ama folktales to link two primary characters.[^62] Although such dual participant marking is extremely rare globally, it becomes possible in Nyima languages in particular where the incremental-distributive pluractional leaves a paradigmatic gap for dual subjects, as still seen in Afitti in **Table 13** above, which Ama has filled in. +A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ̄n*.[^58] The older form of the Ama dual suffix is *-ɪn,*[^59] which has been noted to resemble reciprocal suffixes in other Eastern Sudanic languages, such as Kordofan Nubian *-in*, Daju *-din*, Temein *-ɛ*, and also Ik *-in* of the Kuliak group.[^60] In Ama, its function has evolved to dual reciprocal and other dual participant readings, so for example *wʊ̀s-ɛ̄n* “greet [du]({sc})” can refer to when two people greeted each other, or someone greeted two people, or two people greeted someone.[^61] The dual suffix is regularly used in Ama folktales to link two primary characters.[^62] Although such dual participant marking is extremely rare globally, it becomes possible in Nyima languages in particular where the incremental-distributive pluractional leaves a paradigmatic gap for dual subjects, as still seen in Afitti in **Table 13** above, which Ama has filled in. [^58]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” §3. [^59]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 28. @@ -462,7 +464,7 @@ A late addition to Ama’s pluractional portfolio is its unique dual suffix *-ɛ [^61]: Ibid., p. 120. [^62]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 84, 87. -# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language +# Conclusion: Ama as a Matured North Eastern Sudanic Language {#5} Ama verbs show a number of connections to Nubian and other Eastern Sudanic languages in their clause-final syntax, CVC root shape, and certain affixes. However, these connections are more in form than meaning, as the semantics is highly innovative in such notable shifts as plural → pluractional → progressive and reciprocal → dual, and in the drive towards concretization that has moved the expression of both relative clauses and number out of noun phrases to after the verb. In addition, the movement of low-tone suffixes to the final suffix slot, while itself a formal development, has further advanced the morphologization of aspect, so that stem selection, affix selection, and affix order all vary with aspect in Ama verbs. Next to these considerable changes, Ama’s stable distributive pluractional stands out as indicative of a wider Eastern Sudanic verbal category. @@ -476,7 +478,7 @@ Ama nominals, similarly, are known for their relatively rich case systems, but s The conclusion that Ama verbs (and post-verbal syntax) have matured as a result of Nyima’s isolated position, away from the river systems that hosted speakers of other languages in the Sudan region in the past, faces the possible difficulty that contacts have in fact been proposed between Nyima and other Nuba Mountain groups. Thus, it is proposed that the Niger-Congo Nuba Mountain group Heiban borrowed accusative marking and basic vocabulary from Nyima.[^65] Such contact would have put a brake on maturation in Nyima, because the use of proto-Nyima for inter-group communication between first-language Nyima users and second-language Heiban users would not have supported further growth in complexity.[^66] However, it is not realistic that such contacts lasted for a large proportion of Nyima history, but rather were fairly temporary periods punctuating Nyima’s longer isolation. Thus, the Heiban group has now developed separately in the eastern Nuba Mountains for something approaching two millennia (given the internal diversity of the ten Heiban languages found there) since its contact with Nyima. [^65]: Norton, “Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.” -[^66]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 175, notes the similarity of Ama’s nominal plural *ŋi* to a similar plural clitic *ŋi* [sic] in Heiban, which here might be interpreted as a pidginization effect in which the universally well-motivated category of nominal plurality was renewed in Nyima during inter-group communication after the earlier loss of number affixes. However, Stevenson is unusually in error in this passage as the Heiban form is actually *-ŋa* as he himself documented (ibid, p. 28). Subsequent lowering to a in Heiban cannot be ruled out (he notes Heiban’s relative Talodi has *ɛ* here), but it is also quite possible that *ŋi* was sourced internally, as the high front vowel is also the common element in the plural pronouns *ə̀ŋí/ɲí/ə̀ní* 1pl/2pl/3pl). +[^66]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 175, notes the similarity of Ama’s nominal plural *ŋi* to a similar plural clitic *ŋi* [sic] in Heiban, which here might be interpreted as a pidginization effect in which the universally well-motivated category of nominal plurality was renewed in Nyima during inter-group communication after the earlier loss of number affixes. However, Stevenson is unusually in error in this passage as the Heiban form is actually *-ŋa* as he himself documented (ibid, p. 28). Subsequent lowering to a in Heiban cannot be ruled out (he notes Heiban’s relative Talodi has *ɛ* here), but it is also quite possible that *ŋi* was sourced internally, as the high front vowel is also the common element in the plural pronouns *ə̀ŋí/ɲí/ə̀ní* [1pl/2pl/3pl]({sc})). Some time after the contact with Heiban, Rottland and Jakobi note the likelihood of contact of Kordofan Nubian with Ama and Afitti in the north-west Nuba Mountains before the arrival of Arabic as a *lingua franca* in the Nuba Mountains.[^67] Ama and Afitti are more lexically divergent than Kordofan Nubian and therefore were probably already separate communities when the Kordofan Nubians arrived. However, the innovation of dual marking on Ama verbs in the period after separation from Afitti still shows the hallmarks of maturation. It adds an extremely rare category, increases the occurrence of morphologically complex verbs by using a verbal marker in dual participant contexts that were not previously marked, and adds redundancy when agreeing with noun phrases containing two referents. This mature feature of Ama again suggests that any language contact with Kordofan Nubian occurred for only part of the time since Ama separated from Afitti. @@ -521,78 +523,78 @@ This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification # Bibliography -Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed. *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.* PhD Thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1988. +Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed. ![*A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.*](bib:ad02c9ac-0882-49db-880e-ed52beb6a0aa) PhD Thesis. Buffalo: State University of New York, 1988. -Bryan, Margaret A. “The T/K languages: A New Substratum.” *Africa* 29 (1959): pp. 1–21. +Bryan, Margaret A. ![“The T/K languages: A New Substratum.”](bib:16560c89-8752-499a-880b-439171c31936) *Africa* 29 (1959): pp. 1–21. -Comfort, Jade. “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163. +Comfort, Jade. ![“Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).”](bib:47ef508d-dcd4-4edb-a5e7-0d8ed83d4d86) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163. -Corbett, Greville. *Number.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. +Corbett, Greville. ![*Number.*](bib:e55ce3fa-75cd-431c-b32f-76f020d74421) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. -Dahl, Östen. *The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.* Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. +Dahl, Östen. ![*The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.*](bib:fa85ce3a-26ea-4eef-b83c-c064741d96b0) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. -Dimmendaal, Gerrit. “Africa’s Verb-Final Languages.” In *A Linguistic Geography of Africa,* edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: pp. 272–308. +Dimmendaal, Gerrit. ![“Africa’s Verb-Final Languages.”](bib:c0ae4f6f-5acf-40d6-86cf-a409df0b71c0) In *A Linguistic Geography of Africa,* edited by Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008: pp. 272–308. -Dimmendaal, Gerrit. “Introduction.” In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 1–22. +Dimmendaal, Gerrit. ![“Introduction.”](bib:8d06150a-e825-4f0a-bcd5-4dd73b374d0e) In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 1–22. -Everett, Daniel. “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language.” *Current Anthropology* 46, no. 4 (2005): pp. 621–646. +Everett, Daniel. ![“Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã: Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language.”](bib:d2683616-fe5d-4e39-82ce-c90afac291c8) *Current Anthropology* 46, no. 4 (2005): pp. 621–646. -Everett, Daniel. “Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms.” *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 405–442. +Everett, Daniel. ![“Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms.”](bib:be2fe6d9-0d3f-4bf8-8c33-febab6e158bd) *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 405–442. -Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. “The Plural in Chadic.” In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56. +Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. ![“The Plural in Chadic.”](bib:1af2150f-9e58-43de-b67d-3b3e11eccbf1) In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56. -Gilley, Leoma. “Katcha Noun Morphology.” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522. +Gilley, Leoma. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:e31ac0b3-4fec-4bdc-89a8-d75c16c8ce96) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522. -Greenberg, Joseph. *The Languages of Africa.* Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963. +Greenberg, Joseph. [*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963. Heine, Bernd & Rainer Voßen. “Sprachtypologie.” In *Die Sprachen Afrikas,* edited by Bernd Heine, Thilo Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981: pp. 407–444. -Hyman, Larry, and Imelda Udoh. “Progressive Formation in Leggbo.” In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297-304. +Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh. ![“Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”](bib:7e75d6d0-9dca-45f6-8b18-bf90435447ae) In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297-304. Jakobi, Angelika. *Kordofan Nubian: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.* Unpublished manuscript, 2013. -Kröger, Oliver. “Typology Put to Practical Use: A Participatory Approach to Initial Grammar Research.” In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17-21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger and Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168. +Kröger, Oliver. ![“Typology Put to Practical Use: A Participatory Approach to Initial Grammar Research.”](bib:59d14e2a-d67c-47b2-a685-0abd714c217b) In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17-21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168. -Laca, Brenda. “Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.” In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87-92. +Laca, Brenda. ![“Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.”](bib:53ad1b83-8641-4257-b6dc-f5fba10b4ed7) In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87–92. -Mufwene, Salikoko S. *Stativity and the Progressive.* Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984. +Mufwene, Salikoko S. ![*Stativity and the Progressive.*](bib:6f7190ef-4900-4d62-b053-7cd686a11b49) Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984. -Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues. “Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment.” *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 355–404. +Nevins, Andrew, David Pesetsky & Cilene Rodrigues. ![“Pirahã Exceptionality: A Reassessment.”](bib:a7981395-75e4-4b88-accd-f4c831e7a722) *Language* 85, no. 2 (2009): pp. 355–404. -Newman, Paul. “Pluractional Verbs: An Overview.” In *Verbal Plurality and Distributivity,* edited by Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Brenda Laca. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012: pp. 185–209. +Newman, Paul. ![“Pluractional Verbs: An Overview.”](bib:3c0968aa-be51-42ba-8614-cb90a585075e) In *Verbal Plurality and Distributivity,* edited by Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Brenda Laca. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012: pp. 185–209. -Norton, Russell. “Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages: Evidence from Pronoun Categories and Lexicostatistics.” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig and Gerrit Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2019: pp. 417–446. +Norton, Russell. ![“Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages: Evidence from Pronoun Categories and Lexicostatistics.”](bib:17985725-27ae-41e1-b124-b0bf84df06c0) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig and Gerrit Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2019: pp. 417–446. -Norton, Russell. “Number in Ama Verbs.” *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75-94. +Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75-94. -Norton, Russell. “The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122. +Norton, Russell. ![“The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.”](bib:fdf23efe-67f6-4e7b-9dfc-caa2a281a38c) In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122. -Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Louvain: Peeters, 2010. +Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:2ca95718-79e8-40cd-939a-5dd0e3bbd07e) Louvain: Peeters, 2010. -Rottland, Franz, and Angelika Jakobi. “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269. +Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi. ![“Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.”](bib:a1bae62f-a503-409c-b07d-1d2240ba0b05) *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269. -Smits, Heleen. *A Grammar of Lumun: A Kordofanian Language of Sudan.* 2 vols. Utrecht: LOT, 2017. +Smits, Heleen. ![*A Grammar of Lumun: A Kordofanian Language of Sudan, Vol. 2*](bib:11283ee4-f4b1-42bc-8d99-cea67650843a) Utrecht: LOT, 2017. -Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73-84, 93-115. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:b8411bbc-e923-4876-bc7e-cbe3773812ed) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115. -Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27-65, 117-152, 171-196. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:859327ba-fe96-4c70-ae84-d441abadb867) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196. -Stevenson, Roland. *Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).* Unpublished typescript, 1938. +Stevenson, Roland. ![*Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).*](bib:5d589571-e485-4ed7-8c2e-01b2091c0349) Unpublished typescript, 1938. -Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistiche Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64. +Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. ![“The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”](bib:976903a7-940f-4513-913f-aa8c060cfed1) *Afrikanistiche Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64. -Stirtz, Timothy. *A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.* Utrecht: LOT, 2011. +Stirtz, Timothy. ![*A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.*](bib:723db61e-8c66-4df7-8683-d4cdfa4598df) Utrecht: LOT, 2011. Trudgill, Peter. *Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity.* Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. -Voogt, Alex de. “A Sketch of Afitti Phonology.” *Studies in African Linguistics* 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 35–52. +Voogt, Alex de. ![“A Sketch of Afitti Phonology.”](bib:7896653d-dbab-4dff-ae35-cc503c963e48) *Studies in African Linguistics* 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 35–52. -Voogt, Alex de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. +Voogt, Alex de. ![“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”](bib:1b02f408-997f-4a0b-adf3-37d6fbc6c96d) *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. -Waag, Christine. *The Fur Verb and Its Context.* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2010. +Waag, Christine. ![*The Fur Verb and Its Context.*](bib:7ca3b062-3d4f-4553-85a1-79bc9927ba05) Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2010. -Welmers, William. *African Language Structures.* Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. +Welmers, William. ![*African Language Structures.*](bib:ed6a1277-74e2-4f9e-8fd3-bfe86e635606) Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. -Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. +Werner, Roland. ![*Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian).*](bib:56735ece-24da-4960-9101-ba484f7e57f7) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. -Wolff, Ekkehard. “Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.” In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 199–233. +Wolff, Ekkehard. ![“Patterns in Chadic (and Afroasiatic?) Verb Base Formations.”](bib:2f6fb9b6-658f-4292-b19b-06deebb73fc3) In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 199–233. diff --git a/content/author/russelnorton.md b/content/author/russelnorton.md index c758ecf..716ad28 100644 --- a/content/author/russelnorton.md +++ b/content/author/russelnorton.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ --- -title: Russel Norton +title: Russell Norton --- # Biography From 992a943fd31a8ef27deaf9379e08cadeee8b26f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: 4nubianstudies Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:40:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] all corrections done --- content/article/blench.md | 58 ++--- content/article/jakobi.md | 334 ++++++++++++++------------- content/article/norton.md | 20 +- content/article/rilly.md | 413 ++++++++++++++++++---------------- content/article/starostin.md | 50 ++-- content/author/clauderilly.md | 2 +- content/issue/dotawo7.md | 2 +- 7 files changed, 446 insertions(+), 433 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/article/blench.md b/content/article/blench.md index a427eb8..301192d 100644 --- a/content/article/blench.md +++ b/content/article/blench.md @@ -191,11 +191,11 @@ These affixes are certainly present in East Sudanic languages along with others. The paper considers each branch of East Sudanic in turn, and briefly lays out the evidence for the affix system, as well as the presence of gemination and stacking. Discussion of the membership of individual branches, and their structure is not given here, but can be consulted in standard references.[^308] [^302]: Greenberg, “Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article." -[^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* 176, 181. -[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* 75. +[^303]: Ehret, *A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan,* pp. 176, 181. +[^304]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages,* p. 75. [^305]: Ibid. -[^306]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* 22-24. -[^307]: Storch, *The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic,* 46. +[^306]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 22–24. +[^307]: Storch, *The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic,* p. 46. [^308]: See Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages* and the 2020 edition of [*Ethnologue*](https://www.ethnologue.com/). # Individual Branches @@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ In conclusion, East Sudanic is characterized by a series of affixes, which have # Bibliography -Alamin Mubarak, Suzan. ![“An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology and Noun Phrase.”](bib:4d36dc7a-e169-463e-919e-9a02d5190f6b) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16-19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 9-24. +Alamin Mubarak, Suzan. ![“An Initial Description of Laggori Noun Morphology and Noun Phrase.”](bib:4d36dc7a-e169-463e-919e-9a02d5190f6b) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 9–24. Aviles, Arthur J. ![*The Phonology and Morphology of the Dar Daju Daju Language.*](bib:881b818e-77c1-4714-99fe-90e38630f6a7) MA Thesis, University of North Dakota at Grand Forks, 2008. @@ -730,39 +730,39 @@ Bell, Herman. !["Documentary Evidence on the Ḥarāza Nubian."](bib:9926e196-3e Bender, Lionel M. *Comparative Omotic Lexicon.* Carbondale: SIU, 2003. -Bender, Lionel M. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): pp. 139-150. +Bender, Lionel M. “Genetic Subgrouping of East Sudanic.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 45 (1996): pp. 139–150. -Bender, Lionel M. ![“Proto-Koman Phonology and Lexicon.”](bib:5e5624d2-4ddf-433e-9443-87728622f911) *Africa and Ubersee* 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259-297. +Bender, Lionel M. ![“Proto-Koman Phonology and Lexicon.”](bib:5e5624d2-4ddf-433e-9443-87728622f911) *Africa and Ubersee* 66, no. 2 (1983): pp. 259–297. -Bender, Lionel M. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 63 (2000): pp. 103-120. +Bender, Lionel M. “Roland Stevenson’s Nyimang and Dinik Lexicon.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 63 (2000): pp. 103–120. -Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Genetic Position of Nilotic *i*: Independent Pronouns.”](bib:7ec18d82-c61b-403b-9522-1eed5a336149) In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 89-119. +Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Genetic Position of Nilotic *i*: Independent Pronouns.”](bib:7ec18d82-c61b-403b-9522-1eed5a336149) In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 89–119. -Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan I: Phonology.”](bib:6ba516f-5db9-45bd-b029-1db9c11b10ca) *Afrika und Übersee* 80 (1997): pp. 189-215. +Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan I: Phonology.”](bib:6ba516f-5db9-45bd-b029-1db9c11b10ca) *Afrika und Übersee* 80 (1997): pp. 189–215. -Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan II: Comparative Lexicon.”](bib:c4983e62-25c5-4525-92ba-aac795a8c4ee) *Afrika und Übersee* 81 (1998): pp. 39-64. +Bender, Lionel M. ![“The Eastern Jebel languages of Sudan II: Comparative Lexicon.”](bib:c4983e62-25c5-4525-92ba-aac795a8c4ee) *Afrika und Übersee* 81 (1998): pp. 39–64. Bender, Lionel M. ![*The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.*](bib:bb56d307-45e4-4d4d-bf53-92a4adf2743d) Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005. Bender, Lionel M. ![*The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay.*](bib:1e3f37e3-f5d0-418e-81aa-03d77268a20d) 2nd edition. Munich: Lincom Europa, 1997. -Blench, Roger M. ![“Introduction to the Temein Languages.”](bib:06802bbc-af26-4acb-bf98-cc8c3d1133a6) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485-500. +Blench, Roger M. ![“Introduction to the Temein Languages.”](bib:06802bbc-af26-4acb-bf98-cc8c3d1133a6) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg and Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 485–500. -Blench, Roger M. ![“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.”](bib:8a8ae1e0-6f4b-478a-a292-fd6247aacdbc) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16-19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101-127. +Blench, Roger M. ![“The Kadu Languages and Their Affiliation: Between Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic.”](bib:8a8ae1e0-6f4b-478a-a292-fd6247aacdbc) In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture: Proceedings of the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Institute of African and Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, 16–19 February 2004,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley, and Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 101–127. -Boyeldieu, Pascal. !["Dadjo-Sila."](bib:38130fe4-3b9f-49ca-8a18-9e609ccd504f) In *La qualification dans les langues africaines,* edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57-70. +Boyeldieu, Pascal. !["Dadjo-Sila."](bib:38130fe4-3b9f-49ca-8a18-9e609ccd504f) In *La qualification dans les langues africaines,* edited by Holger Tröbs, Eva Rothmaler, and Kerstin Winkelmann. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2008: pp. 57–70. Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Peeters, 1996. -Bryan, Margaret. ![“The T–K Languages: A New Substratum.”](bib:16560c89-8752-499a-880b-439171c31936) *Africa* 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1-21. +Bryan, Margaret. ![“The T–K Languages: A New Substratum.”](bib:16560c89-8752-499a-880b-439171c31936) *Africa* 29, no. 1 (1959): pp. 1–21. Carlin, Eithne. ![*The So language.*](bib:6aedb64a-5f61-44ed-b6bf-cbeb0901e167) Cologne: Universität zu Köln, 1993. Cohen, Kevin B. ![*Aspects of the Grammar of Kukú.*](bib:3c23c969-072e-4412-ab56-f2ca274d1309) Munich: Lincom Europa, 2000. -Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward. ![“Nara.”](bib:ee9aea12-b98d-4fe6-896c-480fff47552d) *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249-255. +Dawd, Abushush & R.J. Hayward. ![“Nara.”](bib:ee9aea12-b98d-4fe6-896c-480fff47552d) *Journal of the International Phonetic Association* 32, no. 2 (2002): pp. 249–255. -De Voogt, A.J. ![“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”](bib:1b02f408-997f-4a0b-adf3-37d6fbc6c96d) *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. [doi]({sc}): [10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev). +De Voogt, Alex ![“Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.”](bib:1b02f408-997f-4a0b-adf3-37d6fbc6c96d) *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. [doi]({sc}): [10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.04dev). Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Differential Object Marking in Nilo-Saharan.”](bib:40cf1704-08f3-4734-aa6a-6e9aeb61f1fc) *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 31 (2011): pp. 13–46. @@ -772,23 +772,23 @@ Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. "Marked Nominative Systems in Eastern Sudanic and Their Hi Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Number Marking and Noun Categorization in Nilo-Saharan Languages.”](bib:3d490619-8e8b-408f-aaea-5e32cf815750) *Anthropological Linguistics* 42, no. 2 (2000): pp. 214–261. -Edgar, John T. ![“First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”](bib:268893cf-14bb-47a1-8582-704ef9a019e3) In *Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference: Bayreuth Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1991: pp. 111-131. +Edgar, John T. ![“First Steps toward Proto-Tama.”](bib:268893cf-14bb-47a1-8582-704ef9a019e3) In *Proceedings of the Fourth Nilo-Saharan Conference: Bayreuth Aug. 30–Sep. 2, 1989,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1991: pp. 111–131. Ehret, Christopher. ![*A Historical-Comparative Reconstruction of Nilo-Saharan.*](bib:765e512b-31d3-48ab-afe6-70cc4d56f14c) Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2001. Ehret, Christopher. ![*Southern Nilotic History: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of the Past.*](bib:525edf81-a450-43b3-a5bf-068b01618951) Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971. -Gilley, Leoma G. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:e31ac0b3-4fec-4bdc-89a8-d75c16c8ce96) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522. +Gilley, Leoma G. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:e31ac0b3-4fec-4bdc-89a8-d75c16c8ce96) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522. -Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article (with a Penutian Typological Parallel).”](bib:82be6462-9a21-4d01-9641-3edcb9fc673c) *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105-112. +Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Nilo-Saharan Moveable-*k* as a Stage III Article (with a Penutian Typological Parallel).”](bib:82be6462-9a21-4d01-9641-3edcb9fc673c) *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 3, no. 2 (1981): pp. 105–112. -Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”](bib:f3ebbf56-bddc-4bf8-b477-bf366645218a) *Southwestern Journal of Anthropology* 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143-160. +Greenberg, Joseph H. ![“Studies in African Linguistic Classification: V. The Eastern Sudanic Family.”](bib:f3ebbf56-bddc-4bf8-b477-bf366645218a) *Southwestern Journal of Anthropology* 6, no. 2 (1950): pp. 143–160. Greenberg, Joseph H. ![*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1963. Güldemann, Tom. “The Historical-Comparative Status of East Sudanic.” In *Proceedings of the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium,* edited by Roger M. Blench, Petra Weschenfelder, and Georg Ziegelmeyer. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, forthcoming. -Hayward, Richard J. ![“Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara.”](bib:650d0541-6aff-4348-b9ab-b856acff6c1a) In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 247-267. +Hayward, Richard J. ![“Observations on Tone in the Higir Dialect of Nara.”](bib:650d0541-6aff-4348-b9ab-b856acff6c1a) In *"Mehr als nur Worte…": Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland,* edited by R. Voßen, A. Mietzner, and A. Meißner. Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2000: pp. 247–267. Heine, Bernd. ![*The Kuliak Languages of Eastern Uganda.*](bib:036e86e0-9fc8-4474-9f41-df1e76f76101) Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1976. @@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ Lamberti, Marcello. ![*Kuliak and Cushitic: A Comparative Study.*](bib:5e8f9f20- Norton, Russell. "Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective." *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md) -Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75-94. +Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–94. Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:2ca95718-79e8-40cd-939a-5dd0e3bbd07e) Leuven: Peeters, 2009. @@ -816,17 +816,17 @@ Schrock, Terrill B. ![*The Ik Language: Dictionary and Grammar Sketch.*](bib:89b Starostin, George. ![“Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian-Nara-Tama.”](bib:5bcbb628-53d3-4fa0-95e4-170fbb54c03f) *Journal of Language Relationship* [*Вопросы языкового родства*] 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113. -Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:b8411bbc-e923-4876-bc7e-cbe3773812ed) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73-84, 93-115. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:b8411bbc-e923-4876-bc7e-cbe3773812ed) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115. -Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:859327ba-fe96-4c70-ae84-d441abadb867) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27-65, 117-152, 171-196. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:859327ba-fe96-4c70-ae84-d441abadb867) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196. Stirtz, Timothy M. ![*A Grammar of Gaahmg: A Nilo-Saharan Language of Sudan.*](bib:723db61e-8c66-4df7-8683-d4cdfa4598df) Utrecht: LOT, 2011. Storch, Anne. ![*The Noun Morphology of Western Nilotic.*](bib:649b0f27-c8a1-4863-ad50-68a5a0462920) Cologne: Rudiger Köppe, 2005. -Thelwall, Robin A. ![“Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.”](bib:9ed84dac-bac2-4595-93ef-86cd0ea9b735) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigal 1874–1974,* edited by E. Ganslmayr and H. Jungraithmayr, pp. 197-210. Bremen: Übersee Museum, 1977. +Thelwall, Robin A. ![“Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju.”](bib:9ed84dac-bac2-4595-93ef-86cd0ea9b735) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigal 1874–1974,* edited by E. Ganslmayr and H. Jungraithmayr, pp. 197–210. Bremen: Übersee Museum, 1977. -Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.” *Kush* 12 (1964): 188-194. +Trigger, Bruce G. “Meroitic and Eastern Sudanic: A Linguistic Relationship.” *Kush* 12 (1964): 188–194. Tucker, Archibald N. ![*The Eastern Sudanic Languages, Vol. I.*](bib:7ad9f6ea-c1ec-4621-a51e-9d73a754ccf8) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940. @@ -842,6 +842,6 @@ Voßen, Rainer. ![*The Eastern Nilotes: Linguistic and Historical Reconstruction Werner, Roland. ![*Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).*](bib:56735ece-24da-4960-9101-ba484f7e57f7) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. -Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. [“Notes on Baale.”](bib:36f35b75-5629-478b-b969-f806474f54a0) In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273-317. +Yigezu, Moges & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. [“Notes on Baale.”](bib:36f35b75-5629-478b-b969-f806474f54a0) In *Surmic Languages and Cultures,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal and Marco Last. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 1998: pp. 273–317. -Zwarts, Joost. ![“Number in Endo-Marakwet.”](bib:7e4e38f4-ed1f-4f6f-a45d-c283fe4474c6) In *Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22-25, 2001,* edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281–294. +Zwarts, Joost. ![“Number in Endo-Marakwet.”](bib:7e4e38f4-ed1f-4f6f-a45d-c283fe4474c6) In *Advances in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, University of Hamburg, August 22–25, 2001,* edited by Mechthild Reh and Doris L. Payne. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2007: pp. 281–294. diff --git a/content/article/jakobi.md b/content/article/jakobi.md index e86c4b7..6c8d61b 100644 --- a/content/article/jakobi.md +++ b/content/article/jakobi.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ keywords: ["Nubian", "comparative linguistics", "Nyima", "Northern East Sudanic" Since Greenberg’s classification of the African languages there is agreement that the Nubian languages belong to East Sudanic, the largest subgroup of the Nilo-Saharan phylum.[^1] According to Bender, Dimmendaal, and Blench, East Sudanic (also known as Eastern Sudanic) is divided into a northern and a southern branch.[^2] The northern branch comprises Nubian as well as the Taman languages of Darfur and Wadai, the Nyima languages[^5] of the Nuba Mountains, and Nara on the Sudan–Eritrean border. Rilly, in his historical-comparative study, argues that the extinct language of the Meroitic Empire is also part of the northern branch.[^6] The southern branch consists of Berta, Jebel, Daju, Temeinian, Surmic, and Nilotic.[^7] This subclassification is, however, disputed. Ehret and Starostin, for instance, suggest that Ama (referred to by the term Nyimang) is genetically closer to Temeinian and hence part of the southern – rather than the northern – branch of East Sudanic.[^8] [^1]: This paper is partly based on data drawn from published sources, partly collected in collaboration with mother tongue speakers. I am deeply indebted to the unflagging commitment of El-Shafie El-Guzuuli who contributed examples of Andaandi, to Ali Ibrahim of Tagle, Ahmed Hamdan of Karko, and Ishaag Hassan of Midob. Isaameddiin Hasan provided advice on Nobiin. -[^2]: Bender, The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay; Bender, “Nilo-Saharan"; Dimmendaal, “Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora”; ![Blench, this issue](article:blench.md). +[^2]: Bender, *The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay*; Bender, “Nilo-Saharan”; Dimmendaal, “Eastern Sudanic and the Wadi Howar and Wadi El Milk Diaspora”; ![Blench, this issue](article:blench.md). [^5]: In the present paper I will use the term Nyima to refer to the language group comprising Ama, Mandal, and Afitti. Afitti is also known as Dinik (Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”). [^6]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* [^7]: For a recent sub-classification of East Sudanic, see Dimmendaal et al., “Linguistic Features and Typologies in Languages Commonly Referred to as ‘Nilo-Saharan’.” @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ According to Rilly, the Nubian language family has two main branches, Nile Nubia [^fig1]: Adapted from Rilly, “The Linguistic Position of Meroitic.” -**Map** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan. +**Map 1** below shows the northern Nuba Mountains and the geographic distribution of the Nyima group languages, Ama, Mandal, and Afitti, and some neighboring Kordofan Nubian and non-Kordofan Nubian languages. Afitti is spoken on Jebel Dair in the northeastern Nuba Mountains. The Afitti area is adjacent to the area of Dair, a Kordofan Nubian language which occupies the southwestern part of Jebel Dair. By contrast, Ama and Mandal are spoken in the northwestern Nuba Mountains, close to the Kordofan Nubian languages Dilling, Karko, Wali, and Ghulfan. ![The northern Nuba Mountains](../static/images/jakobi2.png "The northern Nuba Mountains") @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Probably due to frequent contact between speakers of Nyima and speakers of Kordo **~~Table 1. Ama – Mandal – PKN correspondences[^16]~~** -[^16]: For the purpose of clarity, the different spelling conventions adopted for writing the various modern Nubian languages in the Latin script have been unified in this paper. Thus, the following digraphs are replaced by single IPA symbols: *sh → ʃ*; *ch → c*; *ny → ɲ*; and *ng → ŋ.* Consonantal characters with diacritics are replaced as follows, *š → ʃ*; *ğ, ǵ → j*; *ń, ñ → ɲ*; *ṅ > ŋ.* The IPA symbol *ɟ,* however, is replaced by *j.* Long vowels are rendered by two identical vowel symbols, e.g., *ii,* rather than by a vowel plus colon (e.g., *i:*) or a vowel with a macron (e.g., *ī*). To facilitate the comparison of the language data from different sources, alveolar stops are rendered by *t* and *d*; the corresponding dentals being represented by *t̪* and *d̪*. +[^16]: For the purpose of clarity, the different spelling conventions adopted for writing the various modern Nubian languages in the Latin script have been unified in this paper. Thus, the following digraphs are replaced by single IPA symbols: *sh → ʃ*; *ch → c*; *ny → ɲ*; and *ng → ŋ.* Consonantal characters with diacritics are replaced as follows, *š → ʃ*; *ğ, ǵ → j*; *ń, ñ → ɲ*; *ṅ → ŋ.* The IPA symbol *ɟ,* however, is replaced by *j.* Long vowels are rendered by two identical vowel symbols, e.g., *ii,* rather than by a vowel plus colon (e.g., *i:*) or a vowel with a macron (e.g., *ī*). To facilitate the comparison of the language data from different sources, alveolar stops are rendered by *t* and *d*; the corresponding dentals being represented by *t̪* and *d̪*. Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto-Kordofan Nubian are shown in **Table 2.** Even though a specific Kordofan Nubian variety cannot be identified as the donor language, the obvious phonetic resemblances suggest that the lexical items in Afitti originate from a Kordofan Nubian, rather than from a Nile Nubian language. @@ -61,11 +61,11 @@ Examples of the close sound and meaning correspondences between Afitti and Proto | fàrsɛˑn, fàrsɛ | \*farʃ- | barsi (An, No) | twin | | t̪ɔndɔˑ | \*tondo | dungur (An), dungir (No) | blind | -**~~Table 2. Afitti – PKN correspondences~~** +**~~Table 2. Afitti–PKN correspondences~~** The striking Ama and Afitti similarities with the corresponding Kordofan Nubian items also indicate that borrowing into the Nyima languages has occurred rather recently, after Kordofan Nubian had split off from the other branches of the Nubian family. -However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (**Table 3**) which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative *a*-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *\*-(i)g-ir,* corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix *-ɪg ~ -ɛg.* In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *-in* vs. the Ama dual *-ɪn,* as well as Midob *-íd* vs. Ama *-ɪ́d̪.* Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural *-er* as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix *-ir* or *-(i)r-ir* and the Ama distributional suffix *-r.* +However, the correspondences between the verb extensions in Nubian and Ama (**Table 3**) which are the focus of this paper, suggest a different historical interpretation, namely as evidence of their remote genetic relationship. This assumption, which will be corroborated in detail below, is based on the correspondences between the Proto-Nubian causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix, which is comparable to the Ama causative *a*-prefix, and the Proto-Nubian causative suffix *\*-(i)gir,* corresponding to the Ama directional/causative suffix *-ɪg ~ -ɛg.* In addition, there are two pairs of phonetically and semantically very similar verb extensions, which have a limited distribution in the Nubian group. They comprise the Kordofan Nubian reciprocal *-in* vs. the Ama dual *-ɪn,* as well as Midob *-íd* vs. Ama *-ɪ́d̪.* Another set of corresponding extensions (not shown in Table 3) includes the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural *-er* as well as the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object suffix *-ir* or *-(i)r-ir* and the Ama distributional suffix *-r.* | Nubian | | Ama | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ According to Dimmendaal, “[v]erbal derivation in the Nilo-Saharan languages co [^31]: Dimmendaal, “Nilo-Saharan,” p. 52. -The present paper will show in detail that Proto-Nubian had seven verbal derivational devices: two causative suffixes ([2.1](#21) and [2.2](#22)), two applicatives ([3.3](#33) and [3.4](#34)), two verbal number suffixes ([4.1](#41) and [4.2](#42)), and a causative prefix ([5](#5)). The section on the applicatives ([3](#3)) is extensive because it will show that the two “give” verbs can be used as independent lexical verbs and also as valency increasing devices. I will argue that applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages are realized as converb constructions rather than as derivational suffixes, as attested in the western branch of the Nubian family. +The present paper will show in detail that Proto-Nubian had seven verbal derivational devices: two causative suffixes ([2.1](#21) and [2.2](#22)), two applicatives ([3.3](#33) to [3.5](#35)), two verbal number suffixes ([4.1](#41) and [4.2](#42)), and a causative prefix ([5](#5)). The section on the applicatives ([3](#3)) is extensive because it will show that two donative verbs can be used as independent lexical verbs and also as valency-increasing devices. I will argue that applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages are realized as converb constructions rather than as derivational suffixes, the latter being attested in the western branch of the Nubian family. Whereas the derivational devices which are found in both branches of the Nubian language group can be reconstructed for Proto-Nubian, there are further verb extensions with a more limited distribution. The Nile Nubian languages, for instance, have passive extensions ([6.1](#61)); Mattokki and Andaandi exhibit a plural object extension ([6.2](#62)); and a plural stem extension is attested in Kordofan Nubian and Midob ([6.3](#63)). A reciprocal suffix ([6.4](#64)) as well as some plural stem extensions occur in Kordofan Nubian ([6.5](#65)). Kordofan Nubian and Midob, meanwhile, exhibit a valency-decreasing suffix ([6.6](#66)). Moreover, in Midob a distinct pluractional extension is found ([6.7](#67)). @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Ama, too, has a rather rich inventory of derivational extensions.[^32] It has su The Ama data are drawn from Stevenson’s survey of the Nuba Mountain languages, Tucker & Bryan’s grammar sketch of the Nyima group, which is based on Stevenson’s fieldwork data, and additional work by Rottland, Jakobi, Stevenson, and Norton.[^33] -[^33]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages"; Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 243-252; Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains"; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik”; ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md). +[^33]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages”; Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* pp. 243–252; Rottland & Jakobi, “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains”; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik”; ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md). The Old Nubian data mostly come from the legend of Saint Mina but also from a few other sources quoted from Van Gerven Oei’s comprehensive Old Nubian grammar.[^38] @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Although Van Gerven Oei conceives *-(i)r* as a “transitive” suffix which is The ditransitive construction derived by the causative *-(i)r*-extension on the verb ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗ “learn” can be illustrated by the following example. Assigning the role of causer to the addressee of the request, the causative of the transitive verb allows two accusative-marked arguments, the first being assigned the role of causee and the second the role of patient.[^ex7] -[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4). +[^ex7]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* ex. ??? (gr 2.4). [CHECK] {{< gloss "(7)" >}} {r} ⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲟⲛⲱ ϣⲟⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲟⲩⲗⲗⲓⲣⲉⲥⲟ @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ The Nobiin *-(i)r*-extension can derive transitive and ditransitive stems when i Werner does not comment on Lepsius’s data, nor does he provide evidence in his Nobiin grammar of such derived transitive and ditransitive verbs. However, his verb paradigms indicate that – unlike transitive verbs – intransitive verbs never take the *-(i)r*-extension in their unmarked [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms.[^45] The absence of *-(i)r* is, no doubt, due to the original restriction of *-(i)r* to transitive and ditransitive verbs. -[^45]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 220-273. +[^45]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 220–273. | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ As in Mattokki, Andaandi *‑(i)r ~ ‑(u)r* is attached to intransitive verb ba {r} “don’t lose the money” {{< /gloss >}} -Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir → -ir-ri → ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension. +Regarding the *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension, Armbruster claims that it is composed of *‑(i)r* plus *‑d(i),* the latter allegedly having a causative or intensive function.[^55] However, it is difficult to corroborate his assertion, since *‑d(i)* is only found after consonants where [d] may originate from [r] assimilated to a preceding consonant. Moreover, the *‑(i)r*-extension may trigger the same morphophonemic changes when it is followed by *‑r-i* marking the neutral[^56] [1sg]({sc}) form. This morpheme sequence is realized as [iddi], too, e.g., *boog-ir-ri* is realized as [bogiddi] “I pour.”[^57] This evidence supports the analysis of the causative *‑iddi*-extension as originating from *‑ir-ir > -ir-ri > ‑iddi,* that is, as a sequence of two *‑(i)r* morphemes. Here are two Andaandi examples attesting the causative *‑iddi ~ ‑uddi*-extension. [^55]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2865 and §3718. [^56]: “Neutral” is a tentative term for a (non-preterite, non-negative) suffix which in previous studies has been called “present tense.” The term “imperfective” is probably more appropriate. @@ -306,8 +306,8 @@ Second, Tagle *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* is attested on some transitive verbs, but not | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (43) | ūlt-ír-ì | “breastfeed!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ūlt-ér-ì | id., [oj pl]({sc}) | -| (44) | ùj-ír-ì | “put down, lay down!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ùj-èr-í | id., [oj pl]({sc}) | +| (43) | ūlt-ír-ì | “breastfeed!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ūlt-ér-ì | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | +| (44) | ùj-ír-ì | “put down, lay down!” [oj sg]({sc}) | ùj-èr-í | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | This contrast of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(ɪ)r* versus *‑er ~ ‑ɛr* is attested by a few Tagle verbs only. It is more common in combination with *‑ig,* forming the valency-increasing extensions *‑ɪg-ɪr ~ ‑ɪg-ɛr,* as shown in [2.2](#22). @@ -342,12 +342,12 @@ In addition to deriving transitive from intransitive verbs, Midob *‑(i)r* can {{< gloss "(49)" >}} {r} **Midob** -{g} on, [3sg]({sc})|taa, road|pacc-ihum,deviate-[prf.3sg]({sc})| +{g} *on*, [3sg]({sc})|*taa*, road|*pacc-ihum*,deviate-[prf.3sg]({sc})| {r} “s/he deviated from the road” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(50)" >}} -{g} on,[3sg]({sc})|naa,[3sg.acc]({sc})|taa,road|pacc-ir-hum,deviate-[caus-prf.3sg]({sc})| +{g} *on*,[3sg]({sc})|*naa*,[3sg.acc]({sc})|*taa*,road|*pacc-ir-hum*,deviate-[caus-prf.3sg]({sc})| {r} “s/he made him deviate from the road” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ As suggested by the voiced or voiceless velar stop, [g] or [k] and the close pho | PN | ON | No | Ma | An | Dil | Ta | Ka | Mi | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| *‑(i)gir | -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ | -kir, -in-kir | -igir, -gid-di | ‑(i)gir, -(i)n-gir | -iir ← -eg-ir [oj.sg]({sc}), -eer ← -ig-er [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɪg-ɪr [oj.sg]({sc}), -ɪg-ɛr [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɛɛr ← -ɛg-ɪr | -ée-k, -èe-k | +| *‑(i)gir | -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ | -kir, -in-kir | -igir, -gid-di | ‑(i)gir, -(i)n-gir | -iir < -eg-ir [oj.sg]({sc}), -eer < -ig-er [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɪg-ɪr [oj.sg]({sc}), -ɪg-ɛr [oj.pl]({sc}) | -ɛɛr < -ɛg-ɪr | -ée-k, -èe-k | Old Nubian -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ – alternatively spelled as -ⲅⲉⲣ -ⲅⲣ̄, -ⲓⲅⲣ̄, -ⲕⲁⲣ, and -ⲕⲣ̄ – can be attached to nominals and verbs. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian causative -ⲅ(ⲁ)ⲣ developed from an auxiliary verb, which later turned into a derivational suffix.[^65] @@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ The following examples from Browne’s dictionary show that it derives transitiv [^66]: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* pp. 81, 124, 152. -| | ON | | | | +| | Old Nubian | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (51) | ⲟⲕ, ⲱⲕ, ⲟⲅ | “stand, be (over)” [itr]({sc}) |ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲁⲣ, ⲟⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ | “place over, attend” [tr]({sc}) | | (52) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ | “shine” [itr]({sc}) | ⲡⲗ̄ⲗ-ⲓⲅⲣ̄ | “reveal, illumine” [tr]({sc}) | @@ -406,18 +406,18 @@ In the Nobiin variety documented by Werner, however, *kìr* is no longer part of In addition to *‑kìr,* Nobiin exhibits the complex causative extension *‑in-kir.* The etymological origin of the component *‑in* is debatable. Is it the linker *‑(i)n-,* as Werner first assumed,[^73] or a cognate of the Old Nubian copula verb ⲉⲓⲛ (*in*), as he has recently proposed? Werner renders *‑in-kir* as “let be” or “let happen” which fits well the semantic association of *‑in-kir* with permission.[^74] By contrast, *‑kìr* connotes with causation. This semantic distinction is confirmed by the Nobiin mother tongue speaker Isaameddiin Hasan.[^75] -[^73]: Ibid., p. 179. +[^73]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 179. [^74]: Werner, p.c., October 2020. [^75]: Isaameddiin Hasan, p.c., 2017. -In the following example the inflectional suffix *‑kiss* is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of *‑kir* to the [1sg]({sc}) preterite suffix *‑s.* +The inflectional suffix *‑kiss* is due to anticipatory assimilation of the final consonant of *‑kir* to the preterite suffix *‑s.* {{< gloss "(58)" >}} {g} *ày*,[1sg]({sc})|*tàk=kà*,[3sg=acc]({sc})|*nàl-ìnkìss*,see-[caus.ind.pt.1sg]({sc})| {r} “I caused him to see” {{< /gloss >}} -The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (← *‑gir-ri ← ‑gir-ir*), and *‑kiddi* (← *‑kir-ri ← ‑kir-ir*) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases. +The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (< *‑gir-ri < ‑gir-ir*), and *‑kiddi* (< *‑kir-ri < ‑kir-ir*) derive transitive stems from intransitive bases and ditransitive stems from transitive bases. | | Mattokki | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -427,10 +427,10 @@ The Mattokki causative extensions *‑(i)gir, ‑kir, ‑giddi* (← *‑gir-ri Here is a Mattokki example of *kuur* “learn” in a causative construction with two arguments, a [1sg]({sc}) causee and an assumed unexpressed pronominal patient.[^77] -[^77]: Ibid. +[^77]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 132. {{< gloss "(62)" >}} -{g} ter,[3sg]({sc})|ai=g,[1sg=acc]({sc})|aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um,[prog]({sc})-learn-[caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg]({sc})| +{g} *ter*,[3sg]({sc})|*ai=g*,[1sg=acc]({sc})|*aa-kuur-kiddi-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-learn-[caus-neg-ind.pt.3sg]({sc})| {r} “he did not teach [it] to me,” lit. “he did not make me learn [it]” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ The *‑(i)gir*-extension occurs on intransitive and transitive verb stems. It i | (64) | ulli | “kindle” | ull-igir | “cause or allow to kindle” | | (65) | jamm=ɛ | “come together, assemble” | |jamm=ɛ-gir | “cause or allow to come together, assemble” | -[^80]: *ɛɛʃ* belongs to the class of onomatopoeia or ideophones. They are not used as free forms but are turned into verbs by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar*, §§2870-2877. +[^80]: *ɛɛʃ* belongs to the class of onomatopoeia or ideophones. They are not used as free forms but are turned into verbs by means of the clitic verb *ɛ* “say,” cf. Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar*, §§2870–2877. Besides attaching to verbal bases, Andaandi *‑(i)gir* can attach to nominal bases, too. The resulting forms are transitive verb stems. @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ Midob, too, has – besides the *‑(i)r*-extension discussed in [2.1](#21) – | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (83) | ètt-ìhèm | “I crossed” | ètt-èek-ìhèm | “I caused to cross” | | (84) | tèey-áhèm | “I carried” | tèey-éek-ìhêm | “I caused to carry” | -| (85) | ètt-áhèm | “I bought” [oj pl]({sc}) | ètt-éek-ìhèm | “I sold” [oj pl]({sc}) | +| (85) | ètt-áhèm | “I bought” [oj pl]({sc}) | ètt-éek-ìhêm | “I sold” [oj pl]({sc}) | Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the singular stem *èed.*[^87] As Midob nouns are not required to be marked for number,[^88] the plurality of the object is solely expressed by the plural stem *ètt.* Literally, the following example can be rendered as “I made him/her buy my goats,” that is, with an unexpressed pronominal causee.[^89] @@ -550,9 +550,9 @@ Midob *ètt* represents the plural stem of “buy,” it contrasts with the sing {r} “I sold my goats” {{< /gloss >}} -Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian languages obviously originate from the Proto-Nubian *\*‑(i)gir*-extension, it is more difficult to show this for the Midob *‑éek ~ ‑èek.* The presence of the voiceless velar [k] is a first indication of the etymological relationship to *\*‑(i)gir,* since initial Proto-Nubian *\*g* is regularly shifted to Midob *k,* as attested by *\*geel-e → kéelé* “red,” *\*gorji → kórcí* “six,” and *\*goj → kòcc* “slaughter.”[^90] Furthermore, the long vowel of *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is suspected to be a realization of *\*‑(i)r,* because syllable-final *\*r* is often deleted in Midob. Compare *\*juur → sóo* “go, walk,” *\*weer → pèe* “someone (indefinite pronoun),” and *\*kir → ìi* “come.” The lengthening of the *ii*-vowel in the last item, which also attests the regular loss of initial *\*k* in Midob, is regarded to be a compensation for the lost *\*r.* Compensatory lengthening does not occur in *sóo* and *pèe* because they have an originally long vowel. +Whereas the causative extensions in the Nile Nubian and Kordofan Nubian languages obviously originate from the Proto-Nubian *\*‑(i)gir*-extension, it is more difficult to show this for the Midob *‑éek ~ ‑èek.* The presence of the voiceless velar [k] is a first indication of the etymological relationship to *\*‑(i)gir,* since initial Proto-Nubian *\*g* is regularly shifted to Midob *k,* as attested by *\*geel-e > kéelé* “red,” *\*gorji > kórcí* “six,” and *\*goj > kòcc* “slaughter.”[^90] Furthermore, the long vowel of *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is suspected to be a realization of *\*‑(i)r,* because syllable-final *\*r* is often deleted in Midob. Compare *\*juur > sóo* “go, walk,” *\*weer > pèe* “someone (indefinite pronoun),” and *\*kir > ìi* “come.” The lengthening of the *ii*-vowel in the last item, which also attests the regular loss of initial *\*k* in Midob, is regarded to be a compensation for the lost *\*r.* Compensatory lengthening does not occur in *sóo* and *pèe* because they have an originally long vowel. -[^90]: The reconstructed PN lexical items are drawn from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 273, the corresponding Midob items from Werner’s Midob–English vocabulary in *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 75-143. +[^90]: The reconstructed PN lexical items are drawn from Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 273, the corresponding Midob items from Werner’s Midob–English vocabulary in *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 75–143. As a result of the preceding considerations, the Midob causative suffix *‑éek ~ ‑èek* is assumed to originate from a complex morpheme composed of *\*‑ir* and *\*‑(i)g,* that is, from a metathesized form of *\*‑(i)g-ir.* The question what motivated this morphotactic change cannot presently be answered. @@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ The applicative – more precisely, the benefactive applicative – is a valency Applicative constructions in the Nubian languages are based on a grammaticalized “give” verb. In the Nile Nubian languages, the grammaticalization path has led to a periphrastic applicative construction, comprising a nonfinite lexical verb and a finite “give” verb. In the western branch, by contrast, the grammaticalization process has gone further, because “give” has adopted the status of a derivational applicative extension. Both the Nile Nubian and the western Nubian applicative constructions are highly productive. -Before exploring these applicative constructions in more detail, we show in [3.1](#31) that most Nubian languages have two “give” verbs serving as independent lexical verbs. In [3.2](#32) we introduce the concept of “converb,” as applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages can be identified as converb constructions [3.3](#33) and [3.5](#35). +Before exploring these applicative constructions in more detail, we show in [3.1](#31) that most Nubian languages have two “give” verbs serving as independent lexical verbs. In [3.2](#32) we introduce the concept of “converb,” as applicatives in the Nile Nubian languages can be identified as converb constructions, see [3.3](#33) and [3.5](#35). ## Two Verbs for "give" {#31} @@ -572,9 +572,9 @@ It is assumed that originally each of the Nubian languages considered in this pa This distinction is still reflected in Nile Nubian. In the languages of the western branch, however, the system is more complex because of the morphological blending of the two donative verbs. The resulting new donative verb is employed in non-imperative applicative forms ([3.4](#34)). In imperative applicative forms, by contrast, at least in Karko and Dilling, two distinct donative verbs are used (see [3.5](#35)). -**Table 6** shows that the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit some unexpected reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen*. Tagle *tí* and Karko *tìì* and *tèn* exhibit an initial alveolar stop. The realization of the initial consonant of Dilling *tir* and *tin* is not known, because the Dilling data are drawn from Kauczor’s grammar which fails to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops – although the phonemic opposition between the dental and alveolar place of articulation is a characteristic of the Kordofan Nubian languages. For this reason, we can only assume that two donative verbs in Dilling have an initial alveolar stop *t,* just like the Karko items and the single Tagle “give” shown in **Table 6**.[^93] +**Table 6** shows that the Kordofan Nubian languages exhibit some unexpected reflexes of *\*tir* and *\*deen*. Tagle *tí* and Karko *tìì* and *tèn* exhibit an initial alveolar stop. The realization of the initial consonant of Dilling *tir* and *tin* is not known, because the Dilling data are drawn from Kauczor’s grammar which fails to distinguish between dental and alveolar stops – although the phonemic opposition between the dental and alveolar place of articulation is a characteristic of the Kordofan Nubian languages. For this reason, we can only assume that the two donative verbs in Dilling have an initial alveolar stop *t,* just like the Karko items and the single Tagle “give” shown in **Table 6**.[^93] -[^93]: The alveolar *t* as initial segment of the two donative verbs is also attested in Uncunwee, as seen in Comfort & Jakobi, “The Verb ‘to give’ as a Verbal Extension in Uncunwee.” +[^93]: The alveolar *t* as an initial segment of the two donative verbs is also attested in Uncunwee, as seen in Comfort & Jakobi, “The Verb ‘to give’ as a Verbal Extension in Uncunwee.” Proto-Nubian word-initial *\*t* (as, for instance, in *\*toor* “enter,” *\*tar* “he, she,” *\*tossi-gu* “three”[^94]) is regularly reflected by a dental *t̪* in the Kordofan Nubian languages. However, *\*tir* “give” is unexpectedly reflected by Karko *tìì,* i.e., with an initial alveolar, rather than with the expected dental stop *t̪.* On the other hand, the shift of initial *\*d* (as in *\*deen*) to the Kordofan Nubian alveolar *t* is quite regular. It is also attested in reflexes of *\*duŋ(-ur)* “blind,” *\*diji* “five,” and *\*dii* “die.” The fact that Karko *tìì* and *tèn* both exhibit an initial alveolar stop indicates the beginning of a morphological blending of the originally distinct donative verbs. This process of simplification is already completed in Tagle *tí,* suggesting the loss of the lexical and semantic contrast originally associated with the two verbs. As Tagle *tí* can neither be shown to be a reflex of *\*tir* nor of *\*deen,* it is considered to be the unpredictable outcome of that blending and simplification process. @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ The following Andaandi clause exhibits the plural object extension *‑ir* being {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(94)" >}} -{g} *in=gi*,[this=acc]({sc})|*ar=gi*,[1pl=acc]({sc})|*deen-c-irir*,give>1-[plact-ploj]({sc})| +{g} *in=gi*,this=[acc]({sc})|*ar=gi*,[1pl=acc]({sc})|*deen-c-irir*,give>1-[plact-ploj]({sc})| {r} “give this to us!” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -666,12 +666,12 @@ Tagle has lost the distinction between the two donative verbs, leaving a single {{< gloss "(97)" >}} {r} **Tagle** -{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*tí-m-ín*,give-[pst-3]({sc})| +{g} *ɪ́yɪ́=g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*tí-m-ín*,give-[pst-3]({sc})| {r} “he gave him/them milk” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(98)" >}} -{g} *ɪ́yɪ́-g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*ò=tí-m-ín*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give-[pst-3]({sc})| +{g} *ɪ́yɪ́=g*,milk=[acc]({sc})|*ò=tí-m-ín*,[1sg.acc]({sc})=give-[pst-3]({sc})| {r} “he gave me milk” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -679,12 +679,11 @@ Like Dilling but unlike Tagle, Karko exhibits two donative verbs, *tìì* (wit {{< gloss "(99)" >}} {r} **Karko** -{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ēē-g*,cow=[acc]({sc})|*tìì*,give>2/3| +{g} *gɔ̄*,this|*t̪ēē=g*,cow=[acc]({sc})|*tìì*,give>2/3| {r} “give him this cow!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(100)" >}} -{r} **Karko** {g} *íǐ(g)*,[1pl.incl.acc]({sc})|*t̪ēē*,cow|*tèn*,give>1| {r} “give us a cow!” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -703,12 +702,12 @@ Parallel to their continuous use as independent verbs, the two Nubian donative v ## Converb Constructions {#32} -Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions in [3.3](#33) and [3.4](#34), the present rather extensive section aims at shedding more light on the properties of the nonfinite dependent verbs. Due to their restricted occurrence and specific functions, these verbs are identified as converbs. Whereas converbs in Andaandi and Mattokki are morphologically unmarked, Old Nubian and Nobiin exhibit an *‑a*-suffix as converb marker. We claim that this suffix differs from the homophone “predicate marker” *‑a* which is attested as a clitic in Old Nubian and Nobiin. According to Van Gerven Oei, the Old Nubian *‑a* can cliticize to various hosts, including i) nominal and verbal predicates in main clauses; ii) final clauses; iii) the element preceding a universal quantifier; and iv) names and kinship terms where *‑a* is used as a vocative marker.[^102] A remnant of the Old Nubian predicate marker is attested in Nobiin, where it serves as a copula.[^103] +Before embarking on a more detailed account of these applicative constructions in [3.3](#33), [3.4](#34), and [3.5](#35), the present rather extensive section aims at shedding more light on the properties of the nonfinite dependent verbs. Due to their restricted occurrence and specific functions, these verbs are identified as converbs. Whereas converbs in Andaandi and Mattokki are morphologically unmarked, Old Nubian and Nobiin exhibit an *‑a*-suffix as converb marker. We claim that this suffix differs from the homophone “predicate marker” *‑a* which is attested as a clitic in Old Nubian and Nobiin. According to Van Gerven Oei, Old Nubian *‑a* can cliticize to various hosts, including i) nominal and verbal predicates in main clauses; ii) final clauses; iii) the element preceding a universal quantifier; and iv) names and kinship terms where *‑a* is used as a vocative marker.[^102] A remnant of the Old Nubian predicate marker is also attested in Nobiin, where it serves as a copula.[^103] [^102]:Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.* chap. 7. -[^103]:Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 167-170. +[^103]:Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* pp. 167–170. -Previous scholars of Nile Nubian languages used various other terms for converbs, including “participle,”[^104] “adjunctive,”[^105] “verbum conjunctum,”[^106] “a-Form,”[^107], or “predicative.”[^108] Only in Hintze’s and Smagina’s studies does the term converb occur,[^109] apparently because these authors were acquainted with the concept of converb in Slavic, Turkish, and Mongolian studies. +Previous scholars of Nile Nubian languages used various other terms for converbs, including “participle,”[^104] “adjunctive,”[^105] “verbum conjunctum,”[^106] “a-Form,”[^107], or “predicate marker.”[^108] Only in Hintze’s and Smagina’s studies does the term converb occur,[^109] apparently because these authors were acquainted with the concept of converb in Slavic, Turkish, and Mongolian studies. [^104]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 292; Reinisch, *Die sprachliche Stellung des Nuba,* p. 25. [^105]: Browne, *Old Nubian Grammar,* p. 64; Hintze, “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II,” p. 287; Bechhaus-Gerst, *The (Hi)story of Nobiin,* p. 137ff. @@ -724,7 +723,7 @@ Converbs are known from various verb-final languages of Eurasia and South Americ [^113]: Jakobi & Crass, *Grammaire du beria,* pp. 168f. [^114]: Comfort, “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” -The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages are first illustrated by three Nobiin examples. The converbs in (103) express a series of events, each of the transitive converbs being preceded by its acc-marked object argument. The converb *joog-j-a* additionally has an [ins]({sc})-marked adjunct *jaaw=log.* Thus, the converb(s) and the finite main verb together with their arguments and adjuncts constitute a multiclausal construction.[^115] +The characteristic semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages are first illustrated by three Nobiin examples. The converbs in (103) express a series of events, each of the transitive converbs being preceded by its [acc]({sc})-marked object argument. The converb *joog-j-a* additionally has an [ins]({sc})-marked adjunct *jaaw=log.* Thus, the converb(s) and the finite main verb together with their arguments and adjuncts constitute a multiclausal construction.[^115] [^115]: Example from Hashim, *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii,* p. 54. @@ -781,13 +780,13 @@ The stative aspect marker in Nobiin, for instance, is also associated with an as {{< gloss "(107)" >}} {r} **Nobiin** -{g} V1,*kàb-à*,[eat-cnv]({sc})|V2,*fìir*,[stat.1pl]({sc})| +{g} V1,*kàb-à*,eat-[cnv]({sc})|V2,*fìir*,[stat.1pl]({sc})| {r} “we are eating” {{< /gloss >}} -Similarly, in Mattokki[^129] and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb buu “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic *te,* for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.[^130] +Similarly, in Mattokki[^129] and Andaandi, a motion verb realized by an unmarked converb (V1), plus a finite posture verb *buu* “lie, rest” (V2), is used to express a transient state of motion. Due to its grammaticalization as a stative marker, V2 has lost its status as a separable main verb. The question clitic *te,* for instance, cannot be inserted between V1 and V2.[^130] -[^129]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 115-117. +[^129]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 115–117. [^130]: Example from Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 38. {{< gloss "(108)" >}} @@ -802,11 +801,11 @@ While the preceding Nobiin and Andaandi examples illustrate the grammaticalizati {{< gloss "(109)" >}} {r} **Nobiin** -{r} ay ed-a kiir → ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come” +{r} ay ed-a kiir > ay ed-kiir [ekkiir] “I bring it,” lit. “I take it and come” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(110)" >}} -{r} ay ed-a juur → ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go” +{r} ay ed-a juur > ay ed-juur [ejjuur] “I take it along,” lit. “I take it and go” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -823,10 +822,10 @@ Andaandi, too, exhibits similar converb constructions expressing directed transf | (115) | tolle dukki | “pull it out!,” lit. “pull it and pull it out!” | | (116) | nog ju ind etta |“go and bring it,” lit. “go and move along and take it up and bring it!” | -In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb. When the derived transitive verb *ʃuguddi* “bring down,” for instance, is preceded by the converb *uski* “bear, give birth,” the resulting construction *uski ʃuguddi* expresses the single transfer event “give birth.”[^133] Abdel-Hafiz considers such biverbal constructions as compounds and consequently writes them as one word.[^134] +In Mattokki, too, such transfer events are often expressed by more than one verb. When the derived transitive verb *ʃuguddi* “bring down,” for instance, is preceded by the converb *uski* “bear, give birth,” the resulting construction *uski ʃuguddi* expresses the single transfer event “give birth.”[^133] Abdel-Hafiz considers such biverbal converb constructions as compounds and consequently writes them as one word.[^134] [^133]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 214. According to El‑Shafie El‑Guzuuli, p.c., this expression is not used in Andaandi. -[^134]: Abdel-Hafiz, A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian, pp. 123–125. Example from ibid., p. 125. +[^134]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* pp. 123–125. Example from ibid., p. 125. {{< gloss "(117)" >}} {r} **Mattokki** @@ -855,16 +854,16 @@ Asymmetrical converb constructions can also become fixed collocations expressing | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (119) | dukk undur | “spread rumors!,” lit. “pull out and enter!” | +| (119) | dukk-undur | “spread rumors!,” lit. “pull out and enter!” | | (120) | tull-undur | “spread lies!,” lit. “blow (smoke) and enter!”| Such collocations and the grammaticalization of adjacent verbs are also manifested in asymmetric serial verb constructions, as Aikhenvald points out.[^140] For this reason, these features cannot be regarded as defining properties of converbs. -[^140]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective, p. 30f.” +[^140]: Aikhenvald, “Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective,” p. 30f. The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions attested in the modern Nile Nubian languages are also apparent in Old Nubian whose converbs are marked by ‑ⲁ. The converb(s) and the main verb, along with their respective object complements and adjuncts, form multiclausal constructions which can express a series of events, as illustrated by ⲉⲛ⳿ⲉ̇ⲧ-ⲁ … ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ-ⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ in (121) and by ⳝⲟⲣ-ⲁ ⲕⲓ-ⲁ̄ … ⲕⲙ̄ⲙ-ⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ in (122).[^141] -[^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas.* +[^141]: Examples from Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* pp. 12, 7. Glossing is taken from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §8.3, ex. 209 and §7.2, ex. 164. [CHECK] Unlike Van Gerven Oei, I consider *-ir* in *ook-ir-s-n-a* to be a causative, rather than a transitive extension (see [2.1](#21)). {{< gloss "(121)" >}} {r} **Old Nubian** @@ -875,7 +874,7 @@ The syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converb constructions a {{< gloss "(122)" >}} {r} ⳟⲥⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲏⲛⲁⲉⲓⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲛ ⲉⲧ̄ⲧⲛ̄ ⳟⲟⲅⲗⲟ ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ ϣⲁⲁⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲙ̄ⲙⲁ⳿ ⲟ̄ⲟ̄ⲕⲣ̄ⲥⲛⲁ· -{g} ŋissou,Saint|*mēna=eion*,Mina=[top]({sc})|*man*,that|*eitt=in*,woman=[gen]({sc})|*ŋog=lo*,house=[loc]({sc})|*jor-a*,go-[cnv]({sc})|*ki-a*,come-[cnv]({sc})|*ʃaak=ka*,door=[acc]({sc})|*kimm-a*,hit-[cnv]({sc})|*ook-ir-s-n-a*,call-[tr-pt2-2/3-pred]({sc})| +{g} ŋissou,Saint|*mēna=eion*,Mina=[top]({sc})|*man*,that|*eitt=in*,woman=[gen]({sc})|*ŋog=lo*,house=[loc]({sc})|*jor-a*,go-[cnv]({sc})|*ki-a*,come-[cnv]({sc})|*ʃaak=ka*,door=[acc]({sc})|*kimm-a*,hit-[cnv]({sc})|*ook-ir-s-n-a*,call-[caus-pt2-2/3-pred]({sc})| {r} “And Saint Mena went to the house of that woman, knocked on the door and had her called.” (M 12.13–16) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -902,17 +901,17 @@ Similar to the modern Nile Nubian languages, Old Nubian converbs do not take inf {{< gloss "(125)" >}} {r} ⲥ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲟⲥⲟⲩ ⳟⲟⲕⲕⲟⲛⲁ ⲧⲱⲉⲕ ⲧⲉⲕⲕⲁ ⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥⲓⳝ[ⲁ̄]· ⳟⲁⲗⲓ̈ⳝⲟⲩⲁⲇⲇⲛ[ⲁ]ⲉⲛⲕⲱ -{g} *istaurosou*,cross|*ŋok-ko-na*,glory-[adj=gen]({sc})|*tōek*-∅,power-[nom]({sc})|*tek=ka*,[3pl=acc]({sc})|*aul-os-ij-a*,save-[pfv-plact-cnv]({sc})|*ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō*,save-[plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred]({sc})-but| +{g} *istaurosou*,cross|*ŋok-ko=na*,glory-[adj=gen]({sc})|*tōek*-∅,power-[nom]({sc})|*tek=ka*,[3pl=acc]({sc})|*aul-os-ij-a*,save-[pfv-plact-cnv]({sc})|*ŋal-ijou-ad-d-n-a-enkō*,save-[plact-inten-prs-2/3sg-pred]({sc})-but| {r} “but (the) power of the glorious cross will save and rescue them” (St 15.1–9) {{< /gloss >}} -Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to." Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.[^148] +Asymmetric converb constructions in Old Nubian often involve two contiguous motion or transfer verbs. These collocations serve to express single directed events, as shown by (121) ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕⲁ ⲕⲓⲥⲛⲁ “descend” plus “come,” i.e., “go down to” or (122) ⳝⲟⲣⲁ ⲕⲓⲁ̄ “go” plus “come,” i.e., “go to.” Collocations of two nearly synonymous verbs can even turn into compound verb stems in which the converb marker is deleted.[^148] [^148]: Browne, *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas,* p. 35 describes the unmarked converb in these collocations as “desinenceless adjunctive.” {{< gloss "(126)" >}} -{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ- “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5) +{r} ⲕⲉⲛ-ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “present an offering” ← ⲕⲉⲛ “place” + ⲇⲟⲩⲕⲕ “worship” (M 6.5) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(127)" >}} @@ -925,7 +924,7 @@ Now, after having described the morphological, syntactic, and semantic propertie While Nile Nubian languages and Midob employ reflexes of *\*tir* in their applicative constructions, the Kordofan Nubian languages employ a new donative verb. As this verb is not a regular reflex of *\*tir,* it is not accounted for in this section but rather in [3.4](#34). -Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, including a converb, which contributes to the lexical expression of the event, and an inflected donative verb as a marker of increased valence. In the western Nubian languages, however, the donative verb is a derivational extension which attaches to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *-(i)n,* see Midob in **Table 7** and examples of Kordofan Nubian in [3.4](#34). Whereas the Midob applicative extension *-(i)n-tir* can license a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary, the Nile Nubian applicative based on *tir is restricted to 2nd and 3rd person beneficiaries, thus retaining the original system. +Nile Nubian applicatives are encoded by bipartite converb constructions, including a converb, which contributes to the lexical expression of the event, and an inflected donative verb as a marker of increased valence. In the western Nubian languages, however, the donative verb is a derivational extension which attaches to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *-(i)n,* see Midob in **Table 7** and examples of Kordofan Nubian in [3.4](#34). Whereas the Midob applicative extension *-(i)n-tir* can license a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person beneficiary, the Nile Nubian applicative based on *\*tir* is restricted to 2nd and 3rd person beneficiaries, thus retaining the original system. | PN | ON | No | Ma | An | Dil | Ta | Ka | Mi | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -957,7 +956,7 @@ The following three examples illustrate an applicative construction with the utt {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(130)" >}} -{g} *talaamiidii=g*,disciples=[acc]({sc})|*iig-a-tij-j-on* (← *iig-a-tir-j-on*),say-[cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg]({sc})| +{g} *talaamiidii=g*,disciples=[acc]({sc})|*iig-a-tij-j-on* (< *iig-a-tir-j-on*),say-[cnv-appl>2/3-plact-pt.3sg]({sc})| {r} “he told his disciples” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -983,7 +982,7 @@ Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin converbs, which are marked by *‑a,* Mattokki and {r} “I am telling you” {{< /gloss >}} -Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words.[^157] At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic te can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.[^161] +Massenbach, Armbruster, Werner, and Abdel-Hafiz represent the biverbal applicative constructions as single words.[^157] At least in Andaandi, however, the question clitic *te* can be inserted between the converb and the finite donative verb. This indicates that the converb and the donative verb are separable free forms. The question of whether the two verbs in the corresponding Nobiin and Mattokki applicative constructions can be separated as well has yet to be investigated.[^161] [^157]: Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes”; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §3998; Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 272; Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.* [^161]: Example provided by El-Guzuuli, p.c., November 2013. @@ -1017,7 +1016,7 @@ Unlike the Nile Nubian applicatives where a donative verb operates in an asymmet | Dil | Ta | Ka | | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| -n-di ← -n-ti | -n-dì ← -n-tì | -n-dìì ← -n-tìì | +| -n-di < -n-ti | -n-dì < -n-tì | -n-dìì < -n-tìì | **~~Table 8. The applicative extension in the Kordofan Nubian languages~~** @@ -1037,7 +1036,7 @@ Dilling *ti* is referred to by Kauczor as “verbum dativum.”[^163] When attac {r} “he hit me (on my) head” {{< /gloss >}} -In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* with the lexical verb stem. The *‑tì*-extension is realized as [dì] after adopting the [+voice] feature of the nasal in *‑(i).* Although Tagle suffixes mostly take the same ATR value as the root vowel, the applicative suffix retains the [+ATR] value of the donative verb *tì.* This suggests that the applicative extension *‑n-dì* has not yet acquired the phonological properties of "regular" bound morphemes, whose vowels commonly harmonize with the root vowel. As applicative extension, Tagle *tì* has a low tone. When used as independent verb, it has a high tone, as seen in (97) and (98). Examples (139) and (140) show the applicative extension referring to a 3rd person and a 1st person beneficiary.[^166] +In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* with the lexical verb stem. The *‑tì*-extension is realized as [dì] after adopting the [+voice] feature of the nasal in *‑(i)n.* Although Tagle suffixes mostly take the same ATR value as the root vowel, the applicative suffix retains the [+ATR] value of the donative verb *tì.* This suggests that the applicative extension *‑n-dì* has not yet acquired the phonological properties of "regular" bound morphemes, whose vowels commonly harmonize with the root vowel. As applicative extension, Tagle *tì* has a low tone. When used as independent verb, it has a high tone, as seen in (97) and (98). Examples (139) and (140) show the applicative extension referring to a 3rd person and a 1st person beneficiary.[^166] [^166]: Tagle examples provided by Ali Ibrahim, p.c. @@ -1052,7 +1051,7 @@ In Tagle, too, the linker *‑(i)n* connects the applicative extension *-tì* wi {r} “the girl weeded the field for me” {{< /gloss >}} -Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as illustrated by the Karko verbs *ɕīj* “descend ([itr]({sc}))" and kɛɛ “make sth. good ([tr]({sc}))," respectively, shown in (141)–(143). The applicative extension *‑n-dìì* is a realization of *-n-tìì.* It licenses both a 3rd person, a 1st person, and a 2nd person beneficiary. The pronominal [3sg]({sc}) beneficiary *t̪éě* is not required to be overtly expressed. The position of the locative‑marked adjunct is variable, preceding or following the verb phrase.[^167] +Applicative extentions may attach to an intransitive or transitive verb stem, as illustrated by the Karko verbs *ɕīj* “descend ([itr]({sc}))” and *kɛɛ* “make sth. good ([tr]({sc})),” respectively, shown in (141)–(143). The applicative extension *‑n-dìì* (*-dìì* after *l*) is a realization of *-n-tìì.* It licenses both a 3rd person, a 1st person, and a 2nd person beneficiary. The pronominal [3sg]({sc}) beneficiary *t̪éě* is not required to be overtly expressed. The position of the locative‑marked adjunct is variable, preceding or following the verb phrase.[^167] [^167]: Karko examples provided by Ahmed Hamdan, p.c. For the plural stem extension *‑(V)k* on *ɕīj‑īk-n-dìì* see [4.2](#42) and [6.5](#65). @@ -1084,18 +1083,18 @@ Reflexes of *\*deen* “give to 1st person” are attested in all Nile Nubian ap **~~Table 9. Nile Nubian applicative marker *\*deen*~~** -When Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ “give to 1st person” is employed as a valence operator, the resulting applicative is a bipartite construction composed of V1 – a lexical verb stem marked by the converb marker ‑ⲁ – plus the finite ⲇⲉⲛ as V2. The plural number of a 1st person beneficiary is reflected by the pluractional extension ‑ⳝ (see [4.1](#41)). Example (141) also shows that the values of the inflectional suffixes on the main verb – with ‑ⲉ-ⲥⲟ marking the imperative form in a command – have scope over the preceding converb, which means that it is also conceived as an imperative form, even though it does not show the corresponding inflectional suffixes.[^170] +When Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ “give to 1st person” is employed as a valence operator, the resulting applicative is a bipartite construction composed of V1 – a lexical verb stem marked by the converb marker ‑ⲁ – plus the finite ⲇⲉⲛ as V2. The plural number of a 1st person beneficiary is reflected by the pluractional extension ‑ⳝ (see [4.1](#41)). Example (144) also shows that the values of the inflectional suffixes on the main verb – with ‑ⲉ-ⲥⲟ marking the imperative form in a command – have scope over the preceding converb, which means that it is also conceived as an imperative form, even though it does not show the corresponding inflectional suffixes.[^170] [^170]: Example from Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* [CHECK]. Old Nubian ⲇⲉⲛ is here written with a final ⳡ rather than ⲛ, thus mirroring its realization as palatal [ɲ] when followed by the palatal stop [ɟ] (i.e., Old Nubian ⳝ). {{< gloss "(144)" >}} {r} **Old Nubian** {r} ⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲕ̄ⲕⲁ ⲉ̄ⲅⲓⲇⲣⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲟⲩⲕⲁ ⲡⲗ̄ⲗⲓ̈ⲅⲣⲁ̄ ⲇⲉⳡⳝⲉⲥⲟ -{g} *mustērou*,mystery|*eik=ka*,[2sg=acc]({sc})|*eigid-r-ou=ka*,ask-[prs-1/2pl=acc]({sc})|*ou=ka*,[1pl.excl=acc]({sc})|*pill-igr-a*,shine-[caus-cnv]({sc})|*deñ-j-e-so*,appl>1-[plact-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})| +{g} *mustērou*,mystery|*eik=ka*,[2sg=acc]({sc})|*eigid-r-ou=ka*,ask-[prs-1/2pl=acc]({sc})|*ou=ka*,[1pl.excl=acc]({sc})|*pill-igr-a*,shine-[caus-cnv]({sc})|*deñ-j-e-so*,[appl>1-plact-imp.2/3sg.pred-comm]({sc})| {r} “reveal to us the mystery which we ask you” (St 5.3–7) {{< /gloss >}} -The position of the pronominal beneficiary appears to be variable. In (141) the pronominal beneficiary ⲟⲩⲕⲁ immediately precedes the converb, whereas in Nobiin example (145) the theme precedes the converb, the pronominal beneficiary occupying clause-initial position.[^172] +The position of the pronominal beneficiary appears to be variable. In (144) the pronominal beneficiary ⲟⲩⲕⲁ immediately precedes the converb, whereas in Nobiin example (145) the theme precedes the converb, the pronominal beneficiary occupying clause-initial position.[^172] [^172]: Example from Abel, *Eine Erzählung im Dialekt von Ermenne,* ex. 69. @@ -1126,7 +1125,7 @@ Unlike Old Nubian and Nobiin, which employ the converb marker *‑a,* the conver Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic applicative constructions as a single word. This may be due to the realization of these biverbal forms as a single prosodic phrase. However, at least in Andaandi, the question clitic *te* can be inserted between the dependent verb and the finite donative verb, thus providing clear evidence of the bipartite character of the applicative constructions.[^176] -[^176]: Example provided by Example provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c.. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed. +[^176]: EExample provided by El-Shafie El-Guzuuli, p.c. The [3sg]({sc}) pronominal direct object is unexpressed. {{< gloss "(148)" >}} {r} **Andaandi** @@ -1134,12 +1133,12 @@ Studies of the modern Nile Nubian languages mostly represent the periphrastic ap {r} “did you send it to me?” {{< /gloss >}} -As for Kordofan Nubian, only Dilling and Karko have retained reflexes of *\*deen.* They appear in two grammatical contextsL i) when employed as lexical transfer verbs, as shown in [3.1](#31); and ii) when used as applicative extensions in imperative forms. Tagle, by contrast, has preserved no reflex of *\*deen.* +As for Kordofan Nubian, only Dilling and Karko have retained reflexes of *\*deen.* They appear in two grammatical contexts: i) when employed as lexical transfer verbs, as shown in [3.1](#31); and ii) when used as applicative extensions in imperative forms. Tagle, by contrast, has preserved no reflex of *\*deen.* | Dil | Ta | Ka | | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| -nin ← -(i)n-tin [imp]({sc}) | – | -nVn ← n-tèn [imp]({sc}) | +| -nin < -n-tin [imp]({sc}) | – | -nVn < -n-tèn [imp]({sc}) | **~~Table 10. Kordofan Nubian applicative markers in imperatives based on *\*deen*~~** @@ -1160,13 +1159,13 @@ The directed transfer verbs *kuʃ* “take to” and *kwata* “bring” assign {r} “bring me water!” {{< /gloss >}} -Similar to Dilling *-nin,* Karko exhibits with *-nVn* a realization of the linker *-(i)n* fused with *tèn* “give to 1st person,” which is a regular reflex of *\*deen.* The applicative extension *-nVn* contrasts with *-n-dìì* (after *b* realized as the allomorph *‑m-bìì*) which originates from the linker plus the irregular donative verb *tìì* and refers to a 3rd person beneficiary. +Similar to Dilling *-nin,* Karko exhibits with *-nVn* a realization of the linker *-(i)n* fused with *tèn* “give to 1st person,” the latter being a regular reflex of *\*deen.* The applicative extension *-nVn* contrasts with *-n-dìì* (after *b* realized as the allomorph *‑m-bìì*) which originates from the linker plus the irregular donative verb *tìì* and refers to a 3rd person beneficiary. Interestingly, in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the morphosyntactic behavior of the two objects differs from the behavior of the corresponding objects in the Nile Nubian languages. In the Kordofan Nubian languages, it is the number of the theme argument that triggers the selection of a singular or plural verb stem. In Karko, for instance, a singular theme selects the singular verb stem *ɕùù* (151), while a plural theme selects the plural stem *ɕùb* (152). In the Nile Nubian languages, by contrast, it is the number of the beneficiary which interacts with the verb stem, as seen in (144), where the 1st person plural beneficiary selects the *‑(i)j*-marked plural verb stem. {{< gloss "(151)" >}} {r} **Karko** -{g} *kèt̪=èg*,cloth.[sg=acc]|*ɕùù-m-bìì*,wash.[sng-lk-appl>2/3]({sc})| +{g} *kèt̪=èg*,cloth.[sg=acc]({sc})|*ɕùù-m-bìì*,wash.[sng-lk-appl>2/3]({sc})| {r} “wash the cloth for him/them!” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -1180,7 +1179,7 @@ Interestingly, in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the morphosyntactic {r} “wash the clothes for us!” {{< /gloss >}} -Summarizing [3](#3), we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *\*tir* and *\*deen* continue to be employed as lexical verbs of transfer. Parallel to this use and bleached of their original semantic content, they have come to serve as valency-increasing grammatical elements in applicative constructions – at least in the Nile Nubian languages. In Kordofan Nubian, however, a simplification process has begun which is associated with the emergence of a new verb *ti* which is replacing the original donative verbs and is considered to result from a morphological blending of both. The initial consonant of *ti* appears to be a reflex of the initial of *\*deen,* while the high front vowel of *ti* stems from the vowel of *\*tir.* In Karko, such *CV*-shaped lexical items are realized with a long vowel, as confirmed by Karko *tìì* “give,” in Tagle with a short vowel, *tí.* This contrast is also attested by Karko *dìì* “drink” corresponding to Tagle *dì,* and Karko *tìì* “die” corresponding to Tagle *tì.* Note that Karko *tìì* “die” and *tìì* “give” are homophones. +Summarizing [3](#3), we recognize that the reflexes of the donative verbs *\*tir* and *\*deen* continue to be employed as lexical verbs of transfer. Parallel to this use and bleached of their original semantic content, they have come to serve as valency-increasing grammatical elements in applicative constructions – at least in the Nile Nubian languages. In Kordofan Nubian, however, a simplification process has begun which is associated with the emergence of a new verb *ti* which is replacing the original donative verbs and is considered to result from a morphological blending of both. The initial consonant of *ti* appears to be a reflex of the initial of *\*deen,* while the high front vowel of *ti* stems from the vowel of *\*tir.* In Karko, such CV-shaped lexical items are realized with a long vowel, as confirmed by Karko *tìì* “give,” in Tagle with a short vowel, *tí.* This contrast is also attested by Karko *dìì* “drink” corresponding to Tagle *dì,* and Karko *tìì* “die” corresponding to Tagle *tì.* Note that Karko *tìì* “die” and *tìì* “give” are homophones. # Verbal Number {#4} @@ -1225,9 +1224,9 @@ While Lepsius refers to the -(i)j-extension in Nobiin as “verbum plurale,”[^ [^182]: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 173. [^183]: Examples from Werner, p.c., October 2020. -| | Nobiin | | | -| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (156) | ày kàb-ìr | “I eat” [oj sg]({sc}) | ày kàb-j-ir | “I eat (a lot or several times)” [oj pl]({sc}) +| | Nobiin | | | | +| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | +| (156) | ày kàb-ìr | “I eat” [oj sg]({sc}) | ày kàb-j-ir | “I eat (a lot or several times)” [oj pl]({sc}) | | (157) | ày nèer-ìr | “I sleep” | ày nèer-j-ìr | “I sleep (several times)” | Because of the wide range of functions covered by *‑(i)j,* Khalil uses the term “verbal plural marker.”[^184] Apart from interacting with plural participants and event plurality, the *‑(i)j*-extension is also used to signal respect when addressing a person, as Khalil shows. @@ -1250,7 +1249,7 @@ As for *‑(i)j* in Mattokki, Massenbach highlights the fact that it expresses t {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(160)" >}} -{g} ter,[3sg]({sc})|*gulud=ki*,jar=[acc]({sc})|*aa-toog-ij-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-break-[plact-neg-neut.3sg]({sc})| +{g} *ter*,[3sg]({sc})|*gulud=ki*,jar=[acc]({sc})|*aa-toog-ij-mun-um*,[prog]({sc})-break-[plact-neg-neut.3sg]({sc})| {r} “he does not smash the jar” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -1272,7 +1271,7 @@ In (162) the *‑(i)j*-extension is realized as [is], due to regressive assimila As for the Andaandi suffix *‑(i)j,* Armbruster notes that it “usually has an intensive or repetitive force.”[^187] -[^187]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2881. Examples from ibid, §2883f. +[^187]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §2881. Examples from ibid., §2883f. | | Andaandi | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -1365,12 +1364,12 @@ The other pair of examples raises the question whether the *‑j*-extension is r [^194]: Examples from ibid., pp. 49 and 86. Werner erroneously translates them as “I answered” and “we answered.” However, as the Midob *-wa*-suffix marks the [1sg]({sc}) and [1pl]({sc}) of the “continuous indicative,” they should be rendered by “I answer” and “we answer.” {{< gloss "(182)" >}} -{g} *éeg-ìr-wà*,answer-[tr-ind.cont.1sg]({sc})| +{g} *éeg-ìr-wà*,answer-[caus-ind.cont.1sg]({sc})| {r} “I answer” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(183)" >}} -{g} *éeg-ìr-j-wà*,answer-[tr-plact-ind.cont.1pl]({sc})| +{g} *éeg-ìr-j-wà*,answer-[caus-plact-ind.cont.1pl]({sc})| {r} “we answer” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -1383,7 +1382,7 @@ In addition to its event plurality and participant plurality marking function, M | (184) | kóod | “see” [imp 2sg]({sc}) | kóod-íc | “see” [imp 2pl]({sc}) | | (185) | sô | “go” [imp 2sg]({sc}) | sóo-íc [sówíc] | “go” [imp 2pl]({sc}) | -This development of the pluractional extension adopting the additional function of a 2nd person plural imperative marker is an innovation which is unattested in the other Nubian languages. +This development of the pluractional extension adopting the additional function of a [2pl]({sc}) imperative marker is an innovation which is unattested in the other Nubian languages. ## The Plural Stem Extension *\*-(i)k* {#42} @@ -1397,7 +1396,7 @@ Probably because the *\*‑(i)k* extension is mainly attested on ideophonic verb As Armbruster was the first to provide evidence of the *‑(i)k*-extension, this section considers Andaandi data first.[^196] Listing a few pairs of verbs Armbruster identifies *‑k* as a suffix with “perhaps intensive or factitive” meaning. While it is obvious that the geminate velar stop *kk* results from the regressive assimilation of the root-final consonant to the following *‑k,* it is not clear why the long root vowel is shortened in case of (186) *jak-k-i* and (187) *jok-k-i* but unchanged in the case of (188) *uuk-k-i.* -[^196]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2852-2855. +[^196]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2852–2855. | | Andaandi | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -1419,7 +1418,7 @@ Armbruster provides a list of some twenty Andaandi verbs exhibiting *‑k.* Most {r} “the fire is blazing” {{< /gloss >}} -Although Massenbach does not address the ‑k-extension in her Mattokki grammar sketch, her dictionary contains some verbs which exhibit *-k,* e.g., *jok-k(i)* “chew”; *kil-ik(i)* “chirp”; *tos-k(i)* “cough”; and *wak-k(i)* “yelp (fox).” The fact that *‑k* often occurs on verbs depicting inherently repetitive events like rumble, blaze, chew, chirp, cough, and yelp indicates that it reflects event plurality. +Although Massenbach does not address the *‑k*-extension in her Mattokki grammar sketch, her dictionary contains some verbs which exhibit *-k,* e.g., *jok-k(i)* “chew”; *kil-ik(i)* “chirp”; *tos-k(i)* “cough”; and *wak-k(i)* “yelp (fox).” The fact that *‑k* often occurs on verbs depicting inherently repetitive events like rumble, blaze, chew, chirp, cough, and yelp indicates that it reflects event plurality. This is also true for Nobiin. Werner’s compilation of Nobiin ideophones contains a list of sixteen “ideophonic verbs imitating animal sounds,” all sharing a low-high tone pattern.[^199] Among these verbs are nine which exhibit the *-k*-extension. Here we present just two examples. @@ -1444,20 +1443,20 @@ The *‑k*-extension in the Nile Nubian languages is assumed to be cognate to * | | Dilling[^201] | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (193) | ir | “bear child” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ir-k | id., [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | -| | be | “get lost” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | be-k | id., [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | +| (193) | ir | “bear child” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ir-k | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | +| | be | “get lost” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | be-k | “id.” [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | [^201]: Examples from Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 128. | | Tagle | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (194) | ònd̪ | “sip, absorb” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ónd̪-ík | id., [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | -| | d̪ád̪d̪ | “cross, pass" [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | d̪ád̪d̪-ík | id., [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | +| (194) | ònd̪ | “sip, absorb” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ónd̪-ík | “id.” [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | +| | d̪ád̪d̪ | “cross, pass” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | d̪ád̪d̪-ík | “id.” [sj sg, rpt]({sc}) | | | Karko | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (195) | kúʃ-ɛ́ɛ́r | “hang up” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùj-ùk | id., [oj pl]({sc}) | -| | ʃíl-ɛ̀ɛ́r | “kindle" [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ʃìl-ìk | id., [oj pl]({sc}) | +| (195) | kúʃ-ɛ́ɛ́r | “hang up” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùj-ùk | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | +| | ʃíl-ɛ̀ɛ́r | “kindle” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ʃìl-ìk | “id.” [oj pl]({sc}) | As Midob is still comparatively poorly documented, there is presently no clear evidence of the *\*-(i)k*-extension. @@ -1476,13 +1475,13 @@ According to Dimmendaal’s typological study, the archaic causative *\*i*-prefi ## The Causative Prefix in the Nubian Languages {#51} -Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This *V*-shaped prefix is recognized both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-* prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix. +Me’en, Majang, Kipsigiis, and Ma’di have retained reflexes of the causative prefix with the original high front vowel *i ~ ɪ.* This V-shaped prefix is retained both in Nubian and Ama although it has undergone vowel shifts. In the Nubian languages, this shift has resulted in the emergence of an *\*u- ~ o-* prefix, in Ama the shift has led to the prefix *a-* (see [5.2](#52)). The reconstructed Nubian vowels *\*u ~ o* can be identified as prefixes because they are all associated with transitive verb stems which contrast with the phonologically and semantically similar intransitive verb stems that do not exhibit an initial vowel. The small number of these derived transitive verbs and the lack of productivity of the vowel prefix suggest that they are a remnant of the archaic causative *\*i*-prefix. -Prefixes are rare in the Nubian languages. Another instance of a petrified prefix is the verbal negation marker *\*m-,*[^203] which is attested in all Nubian languages: e.g., Old Nubian ⲙ-ⲟⲛ, ⲙ-ⲟⲩⲛ “hate, reject, be reluctant” vs. ⲟⲛ, ⲟⲩⲛ “love,” Nobiin *m-éskìr* “be unable” vs. *éské* “be able.” In Dilling, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /b/: *b-or-di* “barren” vs. *ir* “give birth.” In Midob, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /p/: *p-óon-hèm* “I hated, refused, rejected” vs. *óo-hêm* (← *óonhèm*) “I loved.” As the prefixing pattern strongly deviates from the predominantly suffixing pattern, which is now typical of all Nubian languages, it suggests that a restructuring process has taken place. +Prefixes are rare in the Nubian languages. Another instance of a petrified prefix is the verbal negation marker *\*m-,*[^203] which is attested in all Nubian languages: e.g., Old Nubian ⲙ-ⲟⲛ, ⲙ-ⲟⲩⲛ “hate, reject, be reluctant” vs. ⲟⲛ, ⲟⲩⲛ “love,” Nobiin *m-éskìr* “be unable” vs. *éské* “be able.” In Dilling, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /b/: *b-or-di* “barren” vs. *ir* “give birth.” In Midob, *\*m-* has regularly shifted to /p/: *p-óon-hèm* “I hated, refused, rejected” vs. *óo-hêm* (< *óonhèm*) “I loved.” As the prefixing pattern strongly deviates from the predominantly suffixing pattern, which is now typical of all Nubian languages, it suggests that a restructuring process has taken place. [^203]: The “verbal negative in m” is a feature of several Eastern Sudanic languages; see Greenberg, *Studies in African Linguistic Classification,* p. 76. -A closer look at the examples below reveals that when the causative prefix is attached to a verb root, it tends to adopt the quality of the root vowel. The root vowel, in turn, often adopts the quality of the original high front vowel prefix *\*i-*. This process is known as paradigmatic displacement,[^204] which is probably motivated by the canonical *(C)V(V)(C)* shape of Nubian roots. When they are followed by another syllable, this second syllable tends to be reanalyzed as a suffix. Such a syllabic suffix is usually realized with an epenthetic high front vowel *i.* +A closer look at the examples below reveals that when the causative prefix is attached to a verb root, it tends to adopt the quality of the root vowel. The root vowel, in turn, often adopts the quality of the original high front vowel prefix *\*i-*. This process is known as paradigmatic displacement,[^204] which is probably motivated by the canonical (C)V(V)(C) shape of Nubian roots. When they are followed by another syllable, this second syllable tends to be reanalyzed as a suffix. Such a syllabic suffix is usually realized with an epenthetic high front vowel *i.* [^204]: Dimmendaal, *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages,* p. 107. @@ -1496,7 +1495,7 @@ In Old Nubian,[^205] for instance, there is evidence of an ⲟⲩ-prefix on tran [^205]: Due to the lack of a standard orthography, the ON lexical items commonly exhibit several spelling variants. -| | | | +| | Old Nubian | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (200) | ⲧⲟⲣ, ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲧⲟ(ⲣ)ⲁⲣ | “enter” [itr]({sc}) | | | ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲣ̄, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲟⲩⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲧⲁⲣ | “lay, put, hold, deposit” [tr]({sc}) | @@ -1509,7 +1508,7 @@ Another intransitive verb root, ⲥⲟⲩⲕⲕ “descend,” attests two deriv | | ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-(ⲁ)ⲣ, ⲟⲩ-ⲥⲕ-ⲟⲩⲣ | “place” [tr]({sc}) | | | ⲥⲟⲩⲕ-ⲕⲣ̄ | “cause to descend” [tr]({sc}) | -The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the modern Nile Nubian languages: e.g., *u-dir* (Nobiin); *u-ndur* (Mattokki and Andaandi); and *u-skir* (Nobiin, Mattokki, Andaandi). Lepsius recognizes that Andaandi *u-ndire, u-ndure* is a cognate of Nobiin *u-dire.*[^206] The addition of the nasal attested in *u-ndir(e)* and *u-ndur(e)* is due to epenthesis.[^208] It is conceivable that the derived unattested stem *u-toor* underwent a number of phonological and morphological changes, including vowel assimilation, the insertion of the epenthetic *n,* which has triggered the voicing of the following original root-initial *t,* and the re-analysis of the root-final *Vr* sequence as the causative *‑ir*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Two distinct developments are assumed: *utoor → utor → utur → untur → undur,* as attested in Mattokki and Andaandi, and *utoor → utur → udur → udir* in Nobiin. +The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the modern Nile Nubian languages: e.g., *u-dir* (Nobiin); *u-ndur* (Mattokki and Andaandi); and *u-skir* (Nobiin, Mattokki, Andaandi). Lepsius recognizes that Andaandi *u-ndire, u-ndure* is a cognate of Nobiin *u-dire.*[^206] The addition of the nasal attested in *u-ndir(e)* and *u-ndur(e)* is due to epenthesis.[^208] It is conceivable that the derived unattested stem *u-toor* underwent a number of phonological and morphological changes, including vowel assimilation, the insertion of the epenthetic *n,* which has triggered the voicing of the following original root-initial *t,* and the re-analysis of the root-final *Vr* sequence as the causative *‑ir*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Two distinct developments are assumed: *utoor > utor > utur > untur > undur,* as attested in Mattokki and Andaandi, and *utoor > utur > udur > udir* in Nobiin. [^206]: Lepsius, Nubische Grammatik, pp. 405, 141f. Lepsius regards the verb-final *-e* on *undire, undure, udire, sukke, uskire* as the infinitive suffix. [^208]: Epenthesis involving a consonant is specifically known as excrescence. The insertion of a nasal before another consonant, as attested by *undur,* has also occurred in English *messenger* and *passenger,* which are loanwords originating from the French nouns *messager* and *passager.* @@ -1522,7 +1521,7 @@ The *u*-prefix attested in Old Nubian is also found on cognate verbs in the mode | | **Ma** | u-ndur-e | “put in, name, dress” [tr]({sc}) | | | **An** | u-ndur-e | “put in, introduce, insert” [tr]({sc}) | -[^209]: In Mattokki and Andaandi, some lexical items with a root-final *r* delete this *r* in the citation form. However, when followed by a suffix, the *r* shows up again, e.g., *toor-os-ko-r-an* “they have entered"; *toor-iid* “entrance.” +[^209]: In Mattokki and Andaandi, some lexical items with a root-final *r* delete this *r* in the citation form. However, when followed by a suffix, the *r* shows up again, e.g., *toor-os-ko-r-an* “they have entered”; *toor-iid* “entrance.” The extension of the verb stem *u-sk* with the causative *‑ir* results from a secondary process that started when the causative prefix lost its productivity. @@ -1532,7 +1531,7 @@ The extension of the verb stem *u-sk* with the causative *‑ir* results from a | | **No**, **Ma**, **An** | u-sk-ir-e | “put down, lay down” [tr]({sc}) | | | **Ma**, **An** | u-sk-ir-e | “give birth” [tr]({sc}) | -As for Kordofan Nubian, Kauczor was the first to recognize the extension of verb stems by means of prefixes (“Stammbildung durch Präfixe”).[^210] As they introduce a causer, the Dilling *u-* and *o-*prefixes are assumed to be reflexes of the archaic *\*i*-causative. +As for Kordofan Nubian, Kauczor was the first to recognize the extension of verb stems by means of prefixes (“Stammbildung durch Präfixe”).[^210] As they introduce a causer, the Dilling *u*- and *o*-prefixes are assumed to be reflexes of the archaic *\*i*-causative. [^210]: Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* p. 137. @@ -1555,7 +1554,7 @@ These two verb pairs have cognates in Tagle. A native speaker, however, would no [^212]: The initial /e/ vowel in Tagle *ètírì* regularly corresponds to /o/ in other Kordofan Nubian cognates (Ali Ibrahim, p.c.). -Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put down” and “enter”/“insert” exist in Karko awe well. The archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-prefix is reflected by the initial vowel of the transitive items, which is associated with a particular form of vowel harmony in which the quality of the root vowel is adopted by the short suffix vowel due to lag assimilation: e.g., *òk-ót̪* “bean” [sg]({sc}); *ūk-ūnd̪* “fire” [pl]({sc}); *ɕə̀t-ə̀d* “closed” [ptc sg]({sc}). The imperative forms *ə̄-t̪ə́r, ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r, ū-júr* suggest that the initial vowels of these verbs are re-analyzed as root vowels and that the verb-final *Vr* sequence is conceived of as a *‑Vr*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Karko imperatives are marked by a low tone when the verb stems are underived: e.g., *t̪òr* and *jɛ̀r*. The imperative forms of verbs derived by *‑Vr,* however, can have different tone patterns depending on the tone class to which the verbs belong. The contrast between singular and plural imperative forms is unmarked by dedicated suffixes but often expressed by vowel alternation, as (208) *ə̄-t̪ə́r* vs. *ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r* illustrate. +Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put down” and “enter”/“insert” exist in Karko as well. The archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-prefix is reflected by the initial vowel of the transitive items, which is associated with a particular form of vowel harmony in which the quality of the root vowel is adopted by the short suffix vowel due to lag assimilation: e.g., *òk-ót̪* “bean” [sg]({sc}); *ūk-ūnd̪* “fire” [pl]({sc}); *ɕə̀t-ə̀d* “closed” [ptc sg]({sc}). The imperative forms *ə̄-t̪ə́r, ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r, ū-júr* suggest that the initial vowels of these verbs are re-analyzed as root vowels and that the verb-final *Vr* sequence is conceived of as a *‑Vr*-suffix (see [2.1](#21)). Karko imperatives are marked by a low tone when the verb stems are underived: e.g., *t̪òr* and *jɛ̀r*. The imperative forms of verbs derived by *‑Vr,* however, can have different tone patterns depending on the tone class to which the verbs belong. The contrast between singular and plural imperative forms is unmarked by dedicated suffixes but often expressed by vowel alternation, as (208) *ə̄-t̪ə́r* vs. *ɔ̄-t̪ɔ́r* illustrate. | | Karko | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -1571,18 +1570,18 @@ Cognates of the Tagle intransitive/transitive verb pairs “lie down”/“put d {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(211)" >}} -{g} *ɕǎnt̪àà=g*,bag=[acc]({sc})|*kúrɕī=ét̪*,chair=[loc]({sc})|*ū-júr*,caus-put.down| +{g} *ɕǎnt̪àà=g*,bag=[acc]({sc})|*kúrɕī=ét̪*,chair=[loc]({sc})|*ū-júr*,[caus]({sc})-put.down| {r} “put the bag on the chair!” {{< /gloss >}} -Because of their phonological and semantic similarities, the Midob verb stems *súkk* “descend” and *ú-kk* “give birth” can be identified are cognates of Nile Nubian *sukk-* “descend” and *u-skir-* “put down, lay down, give birth;” see examples (201) and (203) above. +Because of their phonological and semantic similarities, the Midob verb stems *súkk* “descend” and *ú-kk* “give birth” can be identified as cognates of Nile Nubian *sukk-* “descend” and *u-skir-* “put down, lay down, give birth”; see examples (201) and (203) above. | | Midob | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (212) | súkk-ihèm | “I descended” | | | ú-kk-áhèm | “I gave birth” | -The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem *ú-kk* is assumed to reflect the archaic causative prefix. It is conceivable that due to this prefix and the preferred monosyllabic structure of lexical roots, the unattested bisyllabic verb stem *ú-súkk* has undergone some changes involving the deletion of the second vowel and the fricative /s/. The deletion of /s/ before /k/ is observed in other Midob lexical items: e.g., *ùkúdí* “dust, sand” ← PN *\*Vskidi*; and *úfúdí ~ úkúdí* ← PN *\*VskVdi.*[^213] The fact that the geminated velar of *súkk* is retained in *ú-kk* corroborates the assumed derivational relationship between these two stems. +The initial vowel of the Midob verb stem *ú-kk* is assumed to reflect the archaic causative prefix. It is conceivable that due to this prefix and the preferred monosyllabic structure of lexical roots, the unattested bisyllabic verb stem *ú-súkk* has undergone some changes involving the deletion of the second vowel and the fricative /s/. The deletion of /s/ before /k/ is also observed in other Midob lexical items: e.g., *ùkúdí* “dust, sand” < PN *\*Vskidi*; and *úfúdí ~ úkúdí* < PN *\*VskVdi.*[^213] The fact that the geminated velar of *súkk* is retained in *ú-kk* corroborates the assumed derivational relationship between these two stems. [^213]: Jakobi, “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants,” p. 220. @@ -1602,7 +1601,7 @@ As in the Nubian languages, verbal derivational extensions in Ama are usually su | (213) | a-t̪os/a-kwos | “suckle” | t̪os/kwos | “suck” | | (214) | a-mɔ | “raise” | mɔ | “rise” | -Stevenson points out that the a-marked causative may “also be combined with the ɪg form,”[^218] which apparently has a causative function as well. Tucker & Bryan, too, note that the causative *a*-prefix is sometimes combined with the *‑ɪg*- and *‑ɛg*-extensions and that, in addition to the causative function, these suffixes express the meaning of “action directed towards.”[^219] For this reason, Norton uses the term “directional” rather than causative.[^220] For the *‑ɪd*-suffix on tam see [6.7](#67). +Stevenson points out that the *a*-marked causative may “also be combined with the *ɪg* form,”[^218] which apparently has a causative function as well. Tucker & Bryan, too, note that the causative *a*-prefix is sometimes combined with the *‑ɪg*- and *‑ɛg*-extensions and that, in addition to the causative function, these suffixes express the meaning of “action directed towards.”[^219] For this reason, Norton uses the term “directional” rather than causative.[^220] For the *‑ɪd*-suffix on *tam* see [6.7](#67). [^218]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: 179. [^219]: Tucker & Bryan, *Linguistic Analyses,* p. 245. @@ -1681,7 +1680,7 @@ As for Mattokki, Massenbach points out that the passive extension is realized as {r} “he is not called” {{< /gloss >}} -Abdel-Hafiz only mentions the *-takk* variant and its allomorph *-cakk* which is used after *c.* It can be used with transitive verbs, but also with intransitive verbs such as neer “sleep.”[^230] +Abdel-Hafiz only mentions the *-takk* variant and its allomorph *-cakk* which is used after *c.* It can be used with transitive verbs, but also with intransitive verbs such as *neer* “sleep.”[^230] [^230]: Abdel-Hafiz, *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian,* p. 111f. @@ -1716,7 +1715,7 @@ As for the origin of the passive extensions various suggestions have been advanc [^236]: Reinisch, *Die Nuba-Sprache,* vol. 1, p. 62. * i) *katt* has developed from *k-att*, i.e. from the accusative marker plus the verb *att* “bring.” -* ii) Andaandi *katt* “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin kand “wrap, dress” or takk with the same meaning. +* ii) Andaandi *katt* “wrap, role (cigarette)” corresponds to Nobiin *kand* “wrap, dress” or *takk* with the same meaning. Reinisch’s second hypothesis is supported by Armbruster, who suggests, too, that the Andaandi passive suffix *-katt* originates from the verb *katt* “wrap.”[^237] Smagina, in turn, argues that Old Nubian *tak(k)* derives from the short form of the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun accusative, the long form being *takka.*[^238] Although the incorporation of a pronoun as part of a passivizing strategy is conceivable, as Van Gerven Oei points out,[^239] the presence of Nobiin *‑daŋ* as a variant of *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* does not support the assumption of the Old Nubian *-tak(k)* passive extension originating in the [3sg]({sc}) pronoun. @@ -1728,17 +1727,17 @@ Given the fact that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and Old Nubian -ⲧⲁⲕ have a CVC-shape Passive markers often have a verbal origin, as shown by the English *be-* and *get*-passives and the German *werden*-passive. Therefore, we follow Reinisch’s and Armbruster’s suggestions assuming that the passive extensions originate from two semantically related verbs, “wrap, wind” and “be covered.” It is conceivable that Andaandi *-katt* originates from *kant* “wrap, wind,” a verb attested both in Nobiin and Andaandi,[^240] particularly because the gemination of *tt* resulting from the regressive assimilation of *n* to *t* is also attested in the lexical variants *sunti* and *sutti* “hoof, fingernail.”[^241] -It is also possible that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* as well as Matokki *‑takk* are based on *tag* “get covered”[^242] incremented by the extension *‑k,* i.e., *-tag-k → -takk.* In the course of grammaticalization the initial *t* may have undergone weakening, i.e., *t → d* which has led to the realization of *‑takk* as *‑dakk.* It is also conceivable that during the assumed grammaticalization process, one of the Nobiin varieties retained *tag* without extending it by *–k*. Considering that the initial and final consonant of *tag* may have been weakened, i.e., *t → d* and *g → ŋ,* it is possible that this variant of the passive extensions has come to be realized as *‑daŋ.* +It is also possible that Nobiin *‑daŋ* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk* as well as Matokki *‑takk* are based on *tag* “get covered”[^242] incremented by the extension *‑k,* i.e., *-tag-k > -takk.* In the course of grammaticalization the initial *t* may have undergone weakening, i.e., *t > d* which has led to the realization of *‑takk* as *‑dakk.* It is also conceivable that during the assumed grammaticalization process, one of the Nobiin varieties retained *tag* without extending it by *–k*. Considering that the initial and final consonant of *tag* may have been weakened, i.e., *t > d* and *g > ŋ,* it is possible that this variant of the passive extensions has come to be realized as *‑daŋ.* -[^240]: Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78,* p. 223. +[^240]: Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78,* p. 223. [^241]: Lepsius, *Nubische Grammatik,* p. 388. -[^242]: This verb is attested in all Nile Nubian languages: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 163; Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 215; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 192. Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78,* p. 249 lists the transitive counterpart *tag-ir* “cover,” German “bedecken.” +[^242]: This verb is attested in all Nile Nubian languages: Browne, *Old Nubian Dictionary,* p. 163; Massenbach, “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes,” p. 215; Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon,* p. 192. Almkvist, *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78,* p. 249 lists the transitive counterpart *tag-ir* “cover,” German “bedecken.” -Of course, we cannot exclude that Andaandi *‑katt* does not originate from *kant* but rather from the metathesis of *‑takk → -katt* (even though the motivation for this phonotactic change is as yet unclear). That suggestion has the advantage of conceiving the passive extensions in the Nile Nubian languages to have a common origin in a single verb, *tag* “get covered.” The semantic notions of this intransitive verb fit well with its grammaticalization as a passive marker. +Of course, we cannot exclude that Andaandi *‑katt* does not originate from *kant* but rather from the metathesis of *‑takk > -katt* (even though the motivation for this phonotactic change is as yet unclear). That suggestion has the advantage of conceiving the passive extensions in the Nile Nubian languages to have a common origin in a single verb, *tag* “get covered.” The semantic notions of this intransitive verb fit well with its grammaticalization as a passive marker. Unlike the Nile Nubian languages, the Kordofan Nubian languages do not have a dedicated passive extension. Rather, as Comfort and Jakobi have shown,[^243] the passive and other non-basic intransitive constructions are based on verbal plural stems (see [6.5](#65)). -[^243]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language"; Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” +[^243]: Comfort, “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language”; Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” As for Midob, Werner denies that there is “a real passive.”[^245] He points out that semantically passive notions are either expressed by a stative or a [3pl]({sc}) active verb form. The latter option is cross-linguistically quite common, it also exists in Old Nubian and Nobiin.[^246] As the [3pl]({sc}) element “is not understood to refer to any specific group of individuals,”[^248] it is known as “generalized subject” or “impersonal.”[^249] @@ -1771,7 +1770,7 @@ The plural object extensions *‑ir* and *‑(i)r-ir* are restricted to Mattokki {{< gloss "(230)" >}} {g} *ar*,[1pl]({sc})|*el-ir-r-un*,find-[ploj-neut-1pl]({sc})| -{r} “we find them" +{r} “we find them” {{< /gloss >}} Armbruster observes that Andaandi *‑ir,* which is sometimes reduplicated and realized as [irir], additionally has distributive connotations since it is “used when the verb’s object is a plural that is regarded as a series of singulars.”[^253] But when discussing (231) and (232), mother tongue speaker El-Shafie El-Guzuuli pointed out that he does not perceive a semantic difference between them.[^254] @@ -1781,13 +1780,13 @@ Armbruster observes that Andaandi *‑ir,* which is sometimes reduplicated and r {{< gloss "(231)" >}} {r} **Andaandi** -{g} *in-gu-gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke-rir*,take-[ploj]({sc})| -{r} “take each of these away!” +{g} *in-gu=gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke-rir*,take-[ploj]({sc})| +{r} “take (each of) these away!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(232)" >}} -{g} *in-gu-gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke*,take| -{r} “take each of these away!” +{g} *in-gu=gi*,this-[pl=acc]({sc})|*sokke*,take| +{r} “take (each of) these away!” {{< /gloss >}} Unlike the reduplicated causative *‑ir-ir*-extension, which is realized as [iddi], the reduplicated plural object extension *‑(i)r-ir* is never pronounced as [iddi]. This finding supports Armbruster’s assumption that the plural object extension is not identical in origin with the causative *\*-(i)r*-extension (see [2.1](#21)).[^255] @@ -1796,7 +1795,7 @@ Unlike the reduplicated causative *‑ir-ir*-extension, which is realized as [id ## The Kordofan Nubian and Midob Plural Stem Extension *‑er* {#63} -Another verbal number marking device is represented by the highly productive extension *-er* (glossed as [plr]({sc})). It is confined to the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob. Kauczor was not only the first to recognize the Dilling prefixes *u-* and *o-* (§5.1), he also noticed that the Dilling *‑er*-extension is used in four distinct grammatical contexts:[^256] +Another verbal number marking device is represented by the highly productive extension *-er* (glossed as [plr]({sc})). It is confined to the Kordofan Nubian languages and Midob. Kauczor was not only the first to recognize the Dilling prefixes *u-* and *o-* ([5.1](#51)), he also noticed that the Dilling *‑er*-extension is used in four distinct grammatical contexts:[^256] [^256]: Kauczor, *Die bergnubische Sprache,* §252. @@ -1901,9 +1900,9 @@ Midob *‑er* is obviously a cognate of the Kordofan Nubian *‑er*-extension. W | | Midob | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | (251) | tèl-ér-hàm |“they sat down” (several people) | -| (252) |tèkk-ér-íc | “stop!" [itr imp 2pl]({sc}) | -| (253) |tìr-îc | “give to him!" [imp 2pl]({sc})| -| (254) | tìr-èr-îc| “give to them!" [imp 2pl]({sc}) | +| (252) |tèkk-ér-íc | “stop!” [itr imp 2pl]({sc}) | +| (253) |tìr-îc | “give to him!” [imp 2pl]({sc})| +| (254) | tìr-èr-îc| “give to them!” [imp 2pl]({sc}) | Interestingly, the Kordofan Nubian and Midob *‑er*-extension is phonetically and semantically comparable to the Ama *‑r*-suffix, which, according to Norton, has distributive connotations, i.e., it distributes the event either over several object referents or over a series of sub-events.[^267] It is always preceded by another distributive suffix, *‑Vd̪,* and the theme vowel *a.* The resulting complex *‑Vd̪-a-r*-suffix in Ama corresponds to the Afitti verbal plural suffix *(-tə)-r.* As distributivity is closely associated with plurality, it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob plural stem extension *‑er* is a cognate of Ama *(-Vd̪-a)-r* and Afitti *(-tə)-r*. Moreover, these extensions may be related to the Mattokki and Andaandi extensions *‑ir* and *‑(i)r-ir,* which are sensitive to plural objects and distributive events (see [6.2](#62)). The different but semantically related functions of these extensions – verbal plural, distributive, plural object – indicate that this extension is of considerable age. @@ -1924,7 +1923,7 @@ Whereas the Nile Nubian languages and Midob express reciprocal notions lexically {r} “the people seized each other” {{< /gloss >}} -In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its underspecified vowel the extension *‑Vn* adopts the quality of the stem vowel. As in Tagle, the reciprocal is attached to the plural verb stem. In the past it requires the intransitive past marker *-ɲj.* +In Karko the reciprocal extension has several allomorphs. Because of its underspecified vowel the extension *‑Vn* adopts the quality of the stem vowel. As in Tagle, the reciprocal is attached to the plural verb stem, which signals low transitivity. In the past it requires the intransitive past marker *-ɲj.* {{< gloss "(257)" >}} {r} **Karko** @@ -1943,28 +1942,28 @@ The Kordofan Nubian languages are rich in verbal number marking devices. In addi | | Dilling | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (258) | bur | “get solid” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | bur-k-iɲ | id., [sj pl]({sc}) | -| (259) | ʃoɲ | “get dry” [itr, sj sg ]({sc}) | ʃwaɲ-c-i | id., [sj pl]({sc}) | -| (260) | dil | “gather” [itr, sj pl]({sc}) | dil-t-ig | id., [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | +| (258) | bur | “get solid” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | bur-k-iɲ | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | +| (259) | ʃoɲ | “get dry” [itr, sj sg ]({sc}) | ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | +| (260) | dil | “gather” [itr, sj pl]({sc}) | dil-t-ig | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | -The stacking of plural stem extensions (i.e. the use of more than one suffix) is a common phenomenon in the Kordofan Nubian languages, as attested by Dilling (258) *bur-k-iɲ,* (259) *ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ,* and (260) *dil-t-ig,* as well as Tagle (261) *èl-t-ìg-ì,* (262) *ét̪-íŋ-k-í,* and (263) *dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́*. While (261) and (262) display [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms marked by a final *‑i,* (263) and (264) illustrate the [2sg/2pl]({sc}) imperative forms, marked by *‑i/ ‑e ~ ‑ɛ*. +The stacking of plural stem extensions (i.e. the use of more than one suffix) is a common phenomenon in the Kordofan Nubian languages, as attested by Dilling (258) *bur-k-iɲ,* (259) *ʃwaɲ-c-iŋ,* and (260) *dil-t-ig,* as well as Tagle (261) *èl-t-ìg-ì,* (262) *ét̪-íŋ-k-í,* and (264) *dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́*. While (261) and (262) display [2sg]({sc}) imperative forms marked by a final *‑i,* (263) and (264) represent the [2sg/2pl]({sc}) imperative forms, marked by *‑i/ ‑e ~ ‑ɛ*. | | Tagle | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (261) | él-ír-ì | “reach!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | èl-t-ìg-ì | id., [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | -| (262) | èt̪-ír-ì | “enter!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ét̪-íŋ-k-í | id., [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | -| (263) | nòm-èr-í | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nòm-k-é | id., [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | -| (264) | dí | “stand up, get up!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́ | id., [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | +| (261) | él-ír-ì | “reach!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | èl-t-ìg-ì | “id.” [oj sg, rpt]({sc}) | +| (262) | èt̪-ír-ì | “enter!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | ét̪-íŋ-k-í | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | +| (263) | nòm-èr-í | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nòm-k-é | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | +| (264) | dí | “stand up, get up!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dɛ́-k-ɛ́r-ɛ́ | “id.” [sj pl, rpt]({sc}) | -Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑tVg, ‑kVn,* and *‑(V)k,* which are often combined with other formal devices such as tonal alternation and the reduplication of the verb root. The examples also illustrate that some verbs exhibit more than one plural stem, one stem interacting with participant number and the other with event number. The “fact that there is usually more than one formal strategy” for marking verbal number suggests “that this grammatical domain is subject to a high degree of communicative dynamism.”[^272] +Karko, too, uses various plural stem extensions, including *‑t-Vg, ‑kVn,* and *‑(V)k,* which are often combined with other formal devices such as tonal alternation and the reduplication of the verb root. The examples also illustrate that some verbs exhibit more than one plural stem, one stem interacting with participant number and the other with event number. The “fact that there is usually more than one formal strategy” for marking verbal number suggests “that this grammatical domain is subject to a high degree of communicative dynamism.”[^272] [^272]: Dimmendaal, “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories,” p. 73. | | Karko | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (265) | kūg-úr | “fix, connect!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùg-t-ùg | id., [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | | -| (266) | dìí-r | “sink!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dìì-kìn | id., [sj pl]({sc}) | dīī-dìì-k | id., [rpt]({sc}) | -| (267) | nwàá-r | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nwàà-kàn | id., [sj pl]({sc}) | dòɕ | id., [rpt]({sc}) | +| (265) | kūg-úr | “fix, connect!” [tr, oj sg]({sc}) | kùg-t-ùg | “id.” [oj pl, rpt]({sc}) | | | +| (266) | dìí-r | “sink!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | dìì-kìn | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | dīī-dìì-k | “id.” [rpt]({sc}) | +| (267) | nwàá-r | “run!” [itr, sj sg]({sc}) | nwàà-kàn | “id.” [sj pl]({sc}) | dòɕ | “id.” [rpt]({sc}) | Like the *‑er*-extension ([6.3](#63)), the suffixes introduced in the present section can mark plural verb stems which are required in transitivity alternations. For this reason, they are glossed just like *‑er* by [plr]({sc}). Here are two pairs of Karko examples contrasting transitive and non-basic intransitive clauses. The latter are illustrated by the agent-preserving clause (269) and the patient-preserving clause (271). @@ -2039,7 +2038,7 @@ Interestingly, most of the participles illustrated here exhibit a marked plural As for the Midob *‑át*-extension, we suggest an analysis different from Werner’s. On first sight, (279)–(281) support his claim that *‑(r)ati* derives reflexive verbs.[^277] -[^277]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53. This suffix is *‑r-at,* rather than *-rati,* because the final *-i* is an epenthetic vowel which is part of the following morpheme. The vowel prevents the unadmitted consonant sequences of *‑h* preceded by a consonant. +[^277]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 53. This suffix is *‑r-at,* rather than *-rati,* because the final *-i* is an epenthetic vowel which is part of the following morpheme. The vowel prevents the unadmitted sequences of *‑h* preceded by a consonant. | | Midob | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -2047,7 +2046,7 @@ As for the Midob *‑át*-extension, we suggest an analysis different from Werne | (280) |tə̀g-ə̀n-dóo-h-èm | “I covered” [tr]({sc}) | tə̀g-rát-ìh-èm | “I covered myself” [refl]({sc}) | | (281) | pìss-ìr-h-êm | “I have sprinkled” [tr]({sc}) |pìss-ìrát-íh-èm | “I sprinkled myself” [refl]({sc}) | -However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not express reflexive notions.[^278] They suggest that *‑r-at* is a complex morpheme composed of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(a)r* plus *‑at.* Whereas the first component looks like a reflex of the causative *\*-(i)r,* the second component *‑at* can be identified as a valency-decreasing device deriving intransitive from transitive verbs. +However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not express reflexive notions.[^278] They suggest that *‑r-at* is a complex morpheme composed of *‑(i)r ~ ‑(a)r* plus *‑át.* Whereas the first component looks like a reflex of the causative *\*-(i)r,* the second component *‑át* can be identified as a valency-decreasing device deriving intransitive from transitive verbs. [^278]: Ibid., pp. 110 and 136. @@ -2060,7 +2059,7 @@ However, his Midob grammar also contains a few counter examples which do not exp It is still conceivable that *‑at* can also trigger a reflexive interpretation, especially when it is attached to verbs with an animate and agentive subject such as “wash,” “cover,” and “sprinkle.” -If Kordofan Nubian *‑ad̪* and Midob *‑át* are cognate valency-decreasing morphemes, are they related to the passive extensions, Old Nubian *‑tak* and Nobiin *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ*? Although the metathesis of *-ad̪ → -d̪a* and *‑át → -tá* is conceivable, none of these suffixes exhibits a velar which would match the final consonants of *‑tak* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ.* For this reason, there is too little evidence supporting the assumption of a common origin of these extensions. +If Kordofan Nubian *‑ad̪* and Midob *‑át* are cognate valency-decreasing morphemes, are they related to the passive extensions, Old Nubian *‑tak* and Nobiin *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ*? Although the metathesis of *-ad̪ > -d̪a* and *‑át > -tá* is conceivable, none of these suffixes exhibits a velar which would match the final consonants of *‑tak* and *‑dakk ~ ‑takk ~ ‑daŋ.* For this reason, there is too little evidence supporting the assumption of a common origin of these extensions. ## The Midob *‑íd*-Extension {#67} @@ -2081,9 +2080,9 @@ Werner, in turn, recognizes this suffix as *‑íd,* ending in an alveolar [d].[ | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| (287) | úkk-ánònùm |“she has given birth” | ukk-íd-ánònùm | “she has given birth (to many children)” | +| (287) | úkk-ánònùm |“she has given birth” | úkk-íd-ánònùm | “she has given birth (to many children)” | -A phonetically and semantically similar *VC*-shaped extension is attested in Ama by *‑ɪ́d̪.* According to Norton, the Ama extension *‑ɪ́d̪* has a distributive function.[^283] It is sensitive to a plural object participant, as shown in (289) or to a plural subject participant as in (290). Moreover, it can express an event distributed in time over a series of sub-events, as in (291). Norton considers ‑ɪ́d̪, with these distributional functions, as a type of pluractional.[^284] +A phonetically and semantically similar VC-shaped extension is attested in Ama by *‑ɪ́d̪.* According to Norton, the Ama extension *‑ɪ́d̪* has a distributive function.[^283] It is sensitive to a plural object participant, as shown in (289) or to a plural subject participant as in (290). Moreover, it can express an event distributed in time over a series of sub-events, as in (291). Norton considers *‑ɪ́d̪,* with these distributional functions, as a type of pluractional.[^284] [^283]: Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs.” [^284]: ![Norton, this issue](article:norton.md). Examples from Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” pp. 77 and 78. @@ -2105,8 +2104,7 @@ A phonetically and semantically similar *VC*-shaped extension is attested in Ama {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(291)" >}} -{g} *ə̀ŋí*,[1pl]({sc})| -*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*dɔ̄rɛŋ*,children|*mʊ̄l*,five|*dɛ̄-ɪ́d̪-ɪ́*,hit-[dstr-th]({sc})| +{g} *ə̀ŋí*,[1pl]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*dɔ̄rɛŋ*,children|*mʊ̄l*,five|*dɛ̄-ɪ́d̪-ɪ́*,hit-[dstr-th]({sc})| {r} “we hit until we had hit five children” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -2116,7 +2114,7 @@ Midob is spoken in Darfur and Ama in the Nuba Mountains. In view of the geograph # Conclusions -If we disregard the predicable epenthetic vowel, we recognize that six of the seven reconstructable derivational extensions either consist of a single consonant *C* or of a *CV(V)C*-pattern. While the *C*-shaped extensions include *\*‑(i)r,* the pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* and the plural stem extension *\*‑(i)k,* the *CV(V)C* pattern is represented by the causative morpheme *\*‑(i)gir* and the applicative morphemes *\*tir* and *\*deen*. This pattern coincides with the canonical syllable pattern of Nubian lexical roots, thus corroborating the assumed origin of *\*(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* from lexical items, or, more precisely, from lexical verbs. +If we disregard the predicable epenthetic vowel, we recognize that six of the seven reconstructable derivational extensions either consist of a single consonant C or of a CV(V)C pattern. While the C-shaped extensions include *\*‑(i)r,* the pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* and the plural stem extension *\*‑(i)k,* the CV(V)C pattern is represented by the causative morpheme *\*‑(i)gir* and the applicative morphemes *\*tir* and *\*deen*. The latter pattern coincides with the canonical syllable pattern of Nubian lexical roots, thus corroborating the assumed origin of *\*(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* from lexical items, or, more precisely, from lexical verbs. Whereas *\*‑(i)r, \*‑(i)j, \*‑(i)k, \*‑(i)gir, \*tir,* and *\*deen* can be traced back to Proto-Nubian, the causative *\*u- ~ o*-prefix and its cognate, the Ama *a*-prefix, are assumed to originate from the archaic Nilo-Saharan *\*i*-. As reflexes of this prefix are also attested in several branches of Eastern Sudanic and in Central Sudanic, they prove to be historically stable derivational morphemes which corroborate the assumed genetic coherence of the Nilo-Saharan phylum, as Dimmendaal argues.[^286] Moreover, the prefixes suggest that these languages have changed from an originally prefixing to a predominantly suffixing type. Another indicator of this conversion process is the archaic Nubian *\*m*-prefix, which used to serve as a negation marker. @@ -2128,15 +2126,15 @@ A manifestation of language change is the grammaticalization of the causative ex Another instance of grammaticalization is the assumed morphological blending of the two donative verbs, resulting in the emergence of the innovative verb *ti.* In the Kordofan Nubian languages *ti* has begun to replace the original donative verbs, particularly in applicative constructions. These distinct stages of grammaticalization indicate that the western Nubian languages have undergone more morphological and syntactic changes than the Nile Nubian languages which have retained the two original verbs. -Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin *‑a*-suffix is a converb marker and therefore different from the Old Nubian clitic predicative marker *-a,* we have highlighted some syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages. They can express chains of successive events or even events prior or simultaneous to the event expressed by the main verb. Converbs are also employed as adverbial modifiers of main verbs. In these contexts, converbs are used in symmetric formations, i.e., the converb(s) and the main verb of a clause contribute equally to the expression of two or more events. In an asymmetric converb construction, by contrast, the converb and the adjacent main verb jointly express a single event. Such asymmetric formations are often associated with directed motion or transfer events or with the grammaticalization of the main verb as an aspect-marking or even valency-changing device. The latter is attested by the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages where the second verb is represented by a finite donative verb. This serves as a valence operator commonly licensing an additional argument with the role of a beneficiary. +Suggesting that the Old Nubian and Nobiin *‑a*-suffix is a converb marker and therefore different from the Old Nubian clitic predicate marker *-a,* we have highlighted some syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties of converbs in the Nile Nubian languages. They can express chains of successive events or even events prior or simultaneous to the event expressed by the main verb. Converbs are also employed as adverbial modifiers of main verbs. In these contexts, converbs are used in symmetric formations, i.e., the converb(s) and the main verb of a clause contribute equally to the expression of two or more events. In an asymmetric converb construction, by contrast, the converb and the adjacent main verb jointly express a single event. Such asymmetric formations are often associated with directed motion or transfer events or with the grammaticalization of the main verb as an aspect-marking or even valency-changing device. The latter is attested by the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages where the second verb is represented by a finite donative verb. This serves as a valence operator commonly licensing an additional argument with the role of a beneficiary. Unlike the biverbal applicative construction in the Nile Nubian languages, applicatives in the Kordofan Nubian and Midob form monoverbal constructions, since “give” has become a derivational morpheme being suffixed to the stem of the lexical verb by means of the linker *‑(i)n*. This means that in Kordofan Nubian applicative constructions the development of “give” as a bound derivational morpheme has reached a further stage on the grammaticalization path than “give” in the Nile Nubian converb constructions. At least in Andaandi, the auxiliary-like “give” verb is a free form which can be separated from the preceding lexical verb by means of the question clitic *te.* -Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-(i)j*-marked verb stem and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the patient, as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j* extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287] +Verbal number plays an important role, as it can express event number and participant number. The pluractional *\*‑(i)j,* for instance, conveys event plurality associated with various aspectual notions. In Andaandi, Dilling, and Midob it expresses intensive and repetitive actions, in Tagle repetitive and continued actions, and in Mattokki distributive events. It also has morphosyntactic functions, as indicated by the interaction between the *-\*(i)j*-marked verb stems and the plural subject in intransitive clauses or the plural object in transitive clauses. In ditransitive applicative constructions the reflex of *\*‑(i)j* is selected by the plural indirect object (i.e., the beneficiary), as attested in the Old Nubian example (144). In Kordofan Nubian ditransitive applicative constructions, however, it is the plural direct object (i.e., the theme) which selects a reflex of *\*‑(i)j,* as shown in the Karko example (179). In transitive clauses *\*‑(i)j* is sensitive to the plural object (patient), as shown in the Old Nubian example (154) and Karko example (177). Thus, the selection of the *\*‑(i)j* extension provides evidence of two patterns of alignment. Whereas the patient aligns with the beneficiary in Old Nubian, in Karko the patient aligns with the theme. These two patterns are known as secondary-object construction and indirect-object construction, respectively.[^287] [^287]: Haspelmath, “Ditransitive Constructions,” Jakobi, Ibrahim & Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” -Verbal number marking in the Kordofan Nubian languages is far more complex than in the Nile Nubian languages. It is carried out by means of several formal strategies, including a variety of suffixes which may be combined with each other and with the alternation of the stem vowel and tone pattern. The morphological complexity of this system suggests that it is rather instable.[^288] In addition to expressing event number and participant number, Kordofan Nubian plural stems can even serve as valency-decreasing devices in agent-preserving and patient-preserving clauses which can even convey facilitative and passive meanings. +Verbal number marking in the Kordofan Nubian languages is far more complex than in the Nile Nubian languages. It is carried out by means of several formal strategies, including a variety of suffixes which may be combined with each other and with the alternation of the stem vowel and tone pattern. The morphological complexity of this system suggests that it is rather instable.[^288] In addition to expressing event number and participant number, Kordofan Nubian plural stems can even serve as valency-decreasing devices in agent-preserving and patient-preserving clauses which may convey facilitative and passive meanings. [^288]: Dimmendaal, “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories,” p. 130. @@ -2146,11 +2144,11 @@ The Kordofan Nubian reciprocal extension *‑in* is comparable to the Ama dual * [^289]: Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix.” -When we consider that the Proto-Nubian liquid *\*r* is retained in most of its daughter languages, as attested by *\*ur* “head,” *\*m-iir* “barren,” and *\*tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person,”[^290] it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural suffix *‑er* and the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object *‑ir*- or *‑(i)rir*-extension are cognates. They also appear to correspond to the Ama distributive extension *‑r* and to the *‑r* component of the complex Ama and Afitti extensions *(‑Vd̪‑a)‑r* and *(-tə)-r,* respectively. In addition to the shared *‑r*-suffix, all of these extensions convey the semantic notion of plurality. +When we consider that the Proto-Nubian liquid *\*r* is retained in most of its daughter languages, as attested by *\*ur* “head,” *\*m-iir* “barren,” and *\*tir* “give to 2nd or 3rd person,”[^290] it is quite conceivable that the Kordofan Nubian and Midob verbal plural suffix *‑er* and the Mattokki and Andaandi plural object *‑ir*- or *‑(i)r-ir*-extension are cognates. They also appear to correspond to the Ama distributive extension *‑r* and to the *‑r* component of the complex Ama and Afitti extensions *(‑Vd̪‑a)‑r* and *(-tə)-r,* respectively. In addition to the shared *‑r*-suffix, all of these extensions convey the semantic notion of plurality. [^290]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 230, 231, 244. -The Midob plural stem extension *‑íd- ~ -ʊd* and the Ama distributive *‑ɪ́d̪* share several features, such as a *VC*-shaped structure, a high vowel, and high tone. Moreover, they are both semantically associated with plurality. Therefore, it seems likely that they have a common genetic origin. +The Midob plural stem extension *‑íd- ~ -ʊd* and the Ama distributive *‑ɪ́d̪* share several features, such as a VC-shaped structure, a high vowel, and high tone. Moreover, they are both semantically associated with plurality. Therefore, it seems likely that they have a common genetic origin. As bound morphemes are less often subject to borrowing than free morphemes, these corresponding verb extensions point to a remote genetic relationship between Nubian and Nyima, rather than to contact-induced similarities. @@ -2200,7 +2198,7 @@ However, in addition to the suggestive evidence of their old genetic links, ther * PN – Proto-Nubian; * PKN – Proto-Kordofan Nubian; * [ploj]({sc}) – plural object; -* [pred]({sc}) – predicative; +* [pred]({sc}) – predicate; * [prf]({sc}) – perfect; * [prog]({sc}) – progressive; * [pfv]({sc}) – perfective; @@ -2234,27 +2232,27 @@ Abdel-Hafiz, A.S. *A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian.* PhD Thesis, State Unive Abel, Hans. *Eine Erzählung im Dialekt von Ermenne (Nubien).* Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 29, no. 8. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913. -Almkvist, Herman N. *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877-78.* Edited by K.V. Zetterstéen. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1911. +Almkvist, Herman N. *Nubische Studien im Sudān 1877–78.* Edited by K.V. Zetterstéen. Uppsala: Almkvist & Wiksell; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1911. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. *Serial Verbs.* Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. -Ameka, Felix K. “Ewe Serial Verb Constructions in Their Grammatical Context.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology,* edited by A.Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 124–143. +Ameka, Felix K. “Ewe Serial Verb Constructions in Their Grammatical Context.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 124–143. Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Converbs in an African Perspective.” In *Catching Language,* edited by Felix A. Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006: pp. 393–440. -Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 319–337. +Amha, Azeb & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. “Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta.” In *Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology,* edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2006: pp. 319–337. Armbruster, Charles H. *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Armbruster, Charles H. *Dongolese Nubian: A Lexicon.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. -Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. “‘Nile-Nubian’ Reconsidered.” In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M.Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96. +Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. “‘Nile-Nubian’ Reconsidered.” In *Topics in Nilo-Saharan Linguistics,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. Hamburg: Buske, 1989: pp. 85–96. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. “Sprachliche und historische Rekonstruktionen im Bereich des Nubischen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Nilnubischen.” *Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika* 6 (1984/85): pp. 7–134. Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. *The (Hi)story of Nobiin: 1000 Years of Language Change.* Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. -Bender, M. Lionel. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *African Languages: An Introduction,* edited by B. Heine & D. Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 43–75. +Bender, M. Lionel. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *African Languages: An Introduction,* edited by Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 43–75. Bender, M. Lionel. *The Nilo-Saharan Languages: A Comparative Essay.* Munich: Lincom Europa, 1996. @@ -2266,7 +2264,7 @@ Browne, Gerald M. *Old Nubian Grammar.* Munich: Lincom Europa, 2002. Browne, Gerald M. *The Old Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas.* Vienna-Mödling: Verein der Förderer der Sudanforschung, 1994. -Comfort, Jade. “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 381-400. +Comfort, Jade. “Converbs in Uncunwee (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo C. Schadeberg & Roger M. Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 381–400. Comfort, Jade. “Verbal Number in the Uncu Language (Kordofan Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 1 (2014): pp. 145–163. @@ -2282,7 +2280,7 @@ Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. *Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of Afric Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology,* edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607. -Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “On Stable and Unstable Features in Nilo-Saharan.” In *Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives,* edited by H. Schröder & P. Jerono. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 9-23. +Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “On Stable and Unstable Features in Nilo-Saharan.” In *Nilo-Saharan Issues and Perspectives,* edited by Helga Schröder & Prisca Jerono. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 9–23. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories.” In *Number – Constructions and Semantics: Case Studies from Africa, Amazonia, India and Oceania,* edited by Anne Storch & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: pp. 57–75. @@ -2300,33 +2298,33 @@ Greenberg, Joseph H. *The Languages of Africa.* 3rd edition. Bloomington: Indian Grüning, Manfred. *A Sketch of the Midob Verbal Morphology.* MA Thesis, Redcliffe College, 2014. -Hashim, Mohamed El-Hadi Hassan. *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii – Shoo Urragi. Nobiin Stories,* Vol. 1. Edited and translated by R. Werner. Berlin: Nubian Press, 2005. +Hashim, Mohamed El-Hadi Hassan. *Nobiiguun Kummaanchii – Shoo Urragi. Nobiin Stories,* Vol. 1. Edited and translated by Roland Werner. Berlin: Nubian Press, 2005. Haspelmath, Martin. “The Grammaticization of Passive Morphology.” *Studies in Language* 14, no. 1 (1990): pp. 25–72. -Haspelmath, Martin. “Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/105. +Haspelmath, Martin. “Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb ‘Give’.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/105. -Hintze, Fritz. “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II.” *Berliner Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie* 20, no. 3 (1971): pp. 287-293. +Hintze, Fritz. “Beobachtungen zur altnubischen Grammatik I und II.” *Berliner Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie* 20, no. 3 (1971): pp. 287–293. -Hopper, Paul J. “Where Do Words Come From?” In *Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday,* edited by W. Croft, K.M. Denning, S. Kemmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990: pp. 151–160. +Hopper, Paul J. “Where Do Words Come From?” In *Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on His 75th Birthday,* edited by William Croft, Keith M. Denning & Suzanne Kemmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990: pp. 151–160. -Hopper, Paul J. & S.A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” *Language* 56, no. 2 (1980): pp. 251–299. +Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” *Language* 56, no. 2 (1980): pp. 251–299. -Jakobi, Angelika. “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture,* edited by A. Abu-Manga, L. Gilley & A. Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228. +Jakobi, Angelika. “The Loss of Syllable-final Proto-Nubian Consonants.” In *Insights into Nilo-Saharan Language, History and Culture,* edited by Al-Amin Abu-Manga, Leoma Gilley & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2006: pp. 215–228. Jakobi, Angelika. “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” *Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung* 70, no. 1 (2017): pp. 117–142. -Jakobi, Angelika & J. Crass. *Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne).* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2004. +Jakobi, Angelika & Joachim Crass. *Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne).* Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2004. Jakobi, Angelika & El-Shafie El-Guzuuli. “Perception Verbs and Their Semantics in Dongolawi (Nile Nubian).” In *Perception and Cognition in Language and Culture,* edited by Anne Storch & Alexandra Aikhenvald. Leiden: Brill, 2013: pp. 193–215. -Jakobi, Angelika & Ali Ibrahim. “Labile Verbs in Tagle (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrti J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 99-127. +Jakobi, Angelika & Ali Ibrahim. “Labile Verbs in Tagle (Kordofan Nubian).” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 99–127. -Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Ibrahim Gulfan. “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” *Faits de Langues/Journal of Language Diversity.* Forthcoming. +Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Gumma Ibrahim Gulfan. “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” *Faits de Langues/Journal of Language Diversity* 51, no. 1 (2020): pp. 99–116. Kauczor, P. Daniel. *Die bergnubische Sprache (Dialekt von Gebel Deleṅ).* Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1920. -Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. “Passive in the World’s Languages.” In *Language Typology and Syntactic Description,* Vol. 1: *Clause Structure,* edited by T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: pp. 325–361. +Keenan, Edward L. & Matthew S. Dryer. “Passive in the World’s Languages.” In *Language Typology and Syntactic Description,* Vol. 1: *Clause Structure,* edited by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007: pp. 325–361. Khalil, Mohamed K. “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin (Nile Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 59–71. @@ -2336,17 +2334,17 @@ Massenbach, Gertrud von. “Wörterbuch des nubischen Kunûzi-Dialektes mit eine Mufwene, Salikoko S. *Stativity and the Progressive.* Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984. +Norton, Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md). + Norton, Russell. “Number in Ama Verbs.” *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–93. -Norton, Russell. . “The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122. +Norton, Russell. “The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.” In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122. -Norton Russell. “Ama Verbs in Comparative Perspective.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 7 (2020): ![this issue](article:norton.md). - -Noonan, Michael. “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” In *Handbook of Language Contact,* edited by R. Hickey. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: pp. 48–65. +Noonan, Michael. “Genetic Classification and Language Contact.” In *Handbook of Language Contact,* edited by Raymond Hickey. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010: pp. 48–65. Pointner, Lena. “Verbal Number in Tabaq.” In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2018: pp. 77–97. -Rapold, Christian J. “Defining Converbs Ten Years On – A Hitchhikers’ Guide.” In *Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues,* edited by S. Völlmin, A. Amha, C.J. Rapold & S. Zaugg-Coretti. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag: pp. 7-30. +Rapold, Christian J. “Defining Converbs Ten Years On – A Hitchhikers’ Guide.” In *Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues,* edited by Sascha Völlmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold & Silvia Zaugg-Coretti. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2012: pp. 7–30. Reinisch, Leo. *Die Nuba-Sprache*. 2 vols. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1879. @@ -2358,27 +2356,27 @@ Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Leuven: Peeters, 20 Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi. “Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountains: Kordofan Nubian and the Nyimang Group.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere,* Sondernummer (1991): pp. 249–269. -Slobin, Dan I. “What Makes Manner of Motion Verbs Salient? Explorations in Linguistic Typology, Discourse and Cognition.” In *Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories,* edited by Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: pp. 59-81. +Slobin, Dan I. “What Makes Manner of Motion Verbs Salient? Explorations in Linguistic Typology, Discourse and Cognition.” In *Space in Languages. Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories,* edited by Maya Hickmann & Stéphane Robert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006: pp. 59–81. Smagina, Eugenia B. *The Old Nubian Language.* Translated by José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente. Dotawo Monograph 3. Earth: punctum books, 2017. Starostin, George. “Lexicostatistical Studies in East Sudanic I: On the Genetic Unity of Nubian–Nara–Tama.” *Journal of Language Relationship* 15, no. 2 (2017): pp. 87–113. -Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73-84, 93-115. +Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115. -Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.” *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27-65, 117-152, 171-196. +Stevenson, Roland C. “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.” *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196. -Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5-64. +Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64. -Thelwall, Robin. “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.” In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2-6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265-286. +Thelwall, Robin. “Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.” In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286. Thelwall, Robin. “Meidob Nubian: Phonology, Grammatical Notes and Basic Vocabulary.” In *Nilo-Saharan Language Studies,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1983: pp. 97–113. -Tucker, A.N. & M.A. Bryan. *Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.* London: Oxford University Press, 1966. +Tucker, Archibald N. & Margaret A. Bryan. *Linguistic Analyses: The Non-Bantu Languages of North-Eastern Africa.* London: Oxford University Press, 1966. -Veselinova, L.N. “Verbal Number and Suppletion.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/80. +Veselinova, Ljuba N. “Verbal Number and Suppletion.” In *The World Atlas of Language Structures Online,* edited by Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013. http://wals.info/chapter/80. -Voogt, Alexander J. de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. +Voogt, Alex de. “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti.” *Studies in Language* 35, no. 4 (2011): pp. 898–911. Werner, Roland. *Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Pho­no­logie, Tonologie und Morphologie.* Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987. @@ -2386,4 +2384,4 @@ Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich Werner, Roland. “Ideophones in Nobiin,” unpublished ms presented as hand-out at the 9th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium at Khartoum, 2004. -Zyhlarz, Ernst. “Die Lautverschiebungen des Nubischen.” *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen* 35 (1949/50): pp. 1-20, 1 28-146, 280-313. +Zyhlarz, Ernst. “Die Lautverschiebungen des Nubischen.” *Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen* 35 (1949/50): pp. 1–20, 128–146, 280–313. diff --git a/content/article/norton.md b/content/article/norton.md index 3ae24df..d08896a 100644 --- a/content/article/norton.md +++ b/content/article/norton.md @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ A role for concreteness in grammar was previously proposed in the Pirahã langu Research over the past century has also been gradually clarifying the complex morphological system of Ama verbs.[^32] Factative and progressive aspect are distinguished in the affix system as well as in stems, and there is an evolving portfolio of pluractional affixes. -[^32]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §XI; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 171-183; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik"; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs”; Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix"; Norton, "Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.” +[^32]: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* §XI; Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: pp. 171–183; Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik"; Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs”; Norton, “The Ama Dual Suffix"; Norton, "Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages.” ## Affix Selection and Order @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ Distributive pluractionals are characterized by optionality with a plural partic [^42]: Corbett, *Number,* p. 116. [^43]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md) -[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115-116. +[^44]: Corbett, *Number,* pp. 115–116. [^45]: Norton, “Number in Ama vVrbs,” pp. 78, 79, 91. [^46]: de Voogt, “Dual Marking and Kinship Terms in Afitti,” p. 903. [^47]: I am grateful to Alex de Voogt for sharing this data in personal communication from his field research on Afitti. @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ Beyond the Nyima branch, the Temein “plural action” suffix *-(ɨ)t̪* shares The confirmation of distributive markers across Nubian, Nyima, and Temein implies that a distributive pluractional was present in Eastern Sudanic from an early stage, with a form like *\*-id.* In Nubian the consonant is palatal,[^50] and although palatals are a difficult area for establishing wider sound correspondences,[^51] the palatal arises in the plausible conditioning environment of a high front vowel. [^50]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md). Jakobi points that the other very similar suffix *-íd* in Midob cannot be reconstructed to proto-Nubian from just one Nubian language, so appears to be an innovation, and her observation of its similarity to the Ama suffix clearly suggests borrowing into Midob from Ama’s ancestor or another related language. Hence, the reconstructable pluractional **[i]ɟ* is more viable as the historic cognate of the Ama suffix. -[^51]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 303-304. +[^51]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 303–304. ### Second Historic Pluractional @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ Some time after the contact with Heiban, Rottland and Jakobi note the likelihood This period nevertheless also reveals one significant example of simplification in Ama verbs that supports the idea that language contact occurred. Afitti has pronominal subject markers on the verb, seen earlier in **Table 13**, which are absent in Ama. The pronominal prefixes are not the same in form as personal pronoun words in Afitti ([1sg]({sc}) *oi* but [1sg]({sc}) prefix *kə-*),[^68] therefore they are not incorporated versions of the current pronoun words, but rather predate them. Some of the Afitti pronoun words ([1sg]({sc}) *oi,* [2sg]({sc}) *i*)[^69] are similar to Ama ([1sg]({sc}) *àɪ̀,* [2sg]({sc}) *ī*) and must be retentions from proto-Nyima, hence the older pronominal prefixes must also be retentions in Afitti, but lost in Ama. Their loss in Ama is remarkable against the larger trend of growth in complexity of Ama verbs that we have examined in this paper. The predicted cause of this surprising reversal is pidginization under contact. That is, their loss is evidence that the Ama language was used for inter-group communication, presumably with the Kordofan Nubians, during which (and for which) Ama SOV sentences were simplified by dropping verbal subject marking. If Kordofan Nubians spoke Ama, then borrowing from Ama into Kordofan Nubian is also likely. In verbs, the obvious candidate for borrowing into Kordofan Nubian is the reciprocal suffix *-in*, as this is not attested elsewhere in Nubian.[^70] The following two-step scenario would then account for the facts: Ama was learned and used by Kordofan Nubians, during which Ama dropped verbal subject marking and its reciprocal suffix was borrowed into Kordofan Nubian; next, Ama returned to isolation in which the reciprocal suffix developed its dual function that is unique to Ama today. -[^68]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34-38. +[^68]: Stevenson, Rottland & Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” pp. 34–38. [^69]: Stevenson, “A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structure of the Nuba Mountain Languages,” 41: p. 177. [^70]: ![Jakobi, this issue](article:jakobi.md). @@ -543,17 +543,17 @@ Everett, Daniel. ![“Pirahã Culture and Grammar: A Response to Some Criticisms Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. ![“The Plural in Chadic.”](bib:1af2150f-9e58-43de-b67d-3b3e11eccbf1) In *Papers in Chadic Linguistics,* edited by Paul Newman & Roxana Ma Newman. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum, 1977: pp. 37–56. -Gilley, Leoma. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:e31ac0b3-4fec-4bdc-89a8-d75c16c8ce96) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501-522. +Gilley, Leoma. ![“Katcha Noun Morphology.”](bib:e31ac0b3-4fec-4bdc-89a8-d75c16c8ce96) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies,* edited by Thilo Schadeberg and Roger Blench. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2013: pp. 501–522. Greenberg, Joseph. [*The Languages of Africa.*](bib:df1c2298-341c-4367-a9cf-37452f7e3068) Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1963. Heine, Bernd & Rainer Voßen. “Sprachtypologie.” In *Die Sprachen Afrikas,* edited by Bernd Heine, Thilo Schadeberg, and Ekkehard Wolff. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1981: pp. 407–444. -Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh. ![“Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”](bib:7e75d6d0-9dca-45f6-8b18-bf90435447ae) In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297-304. +Hyman, Larry & Imelda Udoh. ![“Progressive Formation in Leggbo.”](bib:7e75d6d0-9dca-45f6-8b18-bf90435447ae) In *Globalization and the Study of Languages in Africa,* edited by Ozo-mekuri Ndimele. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications and Emhai Press, 2005: pp. 297–304. Jakobi, Angelika. *Kordofan Nubian: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.* Unpublished manuscript, 2013. -Kröger, Oliver. ![“Typology Put to Practical Use: A Participatory Approach to Initial Grammar Research.”](bib:59d14e2a-d67c-47b2-a685-0abd714c217b) In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17-21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168. +Kröger, Oliver. ![“Typology Put to Practical Use: A Participatory Approach to Initial Grammar Research.”](bib:59d14e2a-d67c-47b2-a685-0abd714c217b) In *Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 17–21 August 2009,* edited by Matthias Brenzinger & Anne-Marie Fehn. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2012: pp. 155–168. Laca, Brenda. ![“Progressives, Pluractionals and the Domains of Aspect.”](bib:53ad1b83-8641-4257-b6dc-f5fba10b4ed7) In *Domaines, Journées d’Études linguistiques.* Nantes: Université de Nantes, 2004: pp. 87–92. @@ -565,7 +565,7 @@ Newman, Paul. ![“Pluractional Verbs: An Overview.”](bib:3c0968aa-be51-42ba-8 Norton, Russell. ![“Classifying the Non-Eastern-Sudanic Nuba Mountain Languages: Evidence from Pronoun Categories and Lexicostatistics.”](bib:17985725-27ae-41e1-b124-b0bf84df06c0) In *Nuba Mountain Language Studies: New Insights,* edited by Gertrud Schneider-Blum, Birgit Hellwig and Gerrit Dimmendaal. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2019: pp. 417–446. -Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75-94. +Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): 75–94. Norton, Russell. ![“The Ama Dual Suffix: An Internal Reconstruction.”](bib:fdf23efe-67f6-4e7b-9dfc-caa2a281a38c) In *Nilo-Saharan: Models and Descriptions,* edited by Angelika Mietzner & Anne Storch. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, 2015: pp. 113–122. @@ -575,9 +575,9 @@ Rottland, Franz & Angelika Jakobi. ![“Loan Word Evidence from the Nuba Mountai Smits, Heleen. ![*A Grammar of Lumun: A Kordofanian Language of Sudan, Vol. 2*](bib:11283ee4-f4b1-42bc-8d99-cea67650843a) Utrecht: LOT, 2017. -Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:b8411bbc-e923-4876-bc7e-cbe3773812ed) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:b8411bbc-e923-4876-bc7e-cbe3773812ed) *Afrika und Übersee* 40 (1956): pp. 73–84, 93–115. -Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimang.”](bib:859327ba-fe96-4c70-ae84-d441abadb867) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196. +Stevenson, Roland C. ![“A Survey of the Phonetics and Grammatical Structures of the Nuba Mountain Languages, with Particular Reference to Otoro, Katcha and Nyimaŋ.”](bib:859327ba-fe96-4c70-ae84-d441abadb867) *Afrika und Übersee* 41 (1957): pp. 27–65, 117–152, 171–196. Stevenson, Roland. ![*Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).*](bib:5d589571-e485-4ed7-8c2e-01b2091c0349) Unpublished typescript, 1938. diff --git a/content/article/rilly.md b/content/article/rilly.md index b89f208..a951437 100644 --- a/content/article/rilly.md +++ b/content/article/rilly.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- title: "Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic" authors: ["clauderilly.md"] -abstract: "please provide an abstract" +abstract: "Thanks to the use of linguistic comparison and analyses of new inscriptions, Meroitic, the extinct language of the kingdom of Meroe, Sudan, has become increasingly well known. The present article deals with the identification of personal markers and verbal number. It shows how Meroitic, like many other languages, used a former demonstrative, *qo*, as a 3rd person independent pronoun. An in-depth analysis of the royal chronicles of the kings and princes of Meroe, compared with their Napatan counterparts written in Egyptian, further yields the [1sg]({sc}) dependent pronoun *e-* (later variant *ye-)*, which can be compared with [1sg]({sc}) found in related languages. A stela of Candace Amanishakheto found in Naga is the starting point for identifying the [2sg]({sc}) and [2pl]({sc}) independent pronouns *are* and *deb*. These two morphemes are linked with the most recent reconstructions of Proto-Nubian pronouns and confirm the narrow genetic relation between Nubian and Meroitic. Finally, the reassessment of the so-called “verbal dative” *‑xe/‑bxe* shows that this morpheme is simply a former verbal number marker with integrated case endings. This makes it a rare instance of transcategorisation in the cross-linguistic typology of verbal number. " keywords: ["Meroitic", "Meroe", "Kush", "Napata", "pronouns", "Egyptian", "decipherment", "verbal morphology", "pronominal morphology", "person", "comparative linguistics", "Old Nubian", "Nobiin", "Andaandi", "Ama", "Nara", "Taman", "Mattokki", "Karko"] --- @@ -38,30 +38,30 @@ In addition, when the situation of uttering is clear and verbal affixes are pres Morphological issues in Meroitic cannot be addressed without taking into account the conventions of the writing system, because this is the only way we have to reconstruct the actual pronunciation of the words. The traditional transliteration of the texts, which follows the rules established by Griffith in 1911, is convenient because it is a direct reflection of the Meroitic signs (the default vowel /a/ is not written), but it is not a faithful rendering of the pronunciation. For instance, the Meroitic transcription of Greek Καῖσαρ (Latin *Caesar*) is written *kisri* but was pronounced /kaisari/. The Meroitic script is an alphasyllabary, like Indic scripts or the Ethiopian abugida.[^3] There were actually two scripts, the cursive script and the hieroglyphic script, but they followed the same principles and differ only by the forms of the signs, like capital and lowercase letters in Latin script, with the difference that the two registers are never mixed in the same text. -[^3]: This distinctive feature of the Meroitic writing-system was first evidenced in Hintze 1973. For an extensive study of the rules of Meroitic script, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 277-314. +[^3]: This distinctive feature of the Meroitic writing-system was first evidenced in Hintze 1973. For an extensive study of the rules of Meroitic script, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 277–314. The script includes nineteen syllabic signs. Fifteen of them have the value “consonant + /a/”. The default vowel /a/ can be modified by adding one of the three vocalic signs *e, i,* and *o.* Like in English, the sign e has three values: /e/, /ə/ (schwa), and zero. The zero value is used to write consonant clusters or final consonants, for instance *qore* "ruler,” pronounced /kʷur/. The sign *o* is used for /u/ and /o/. Four additional syllabic signs have a fixed vocalic value: three of them represent “consonant + *e*” (*ne, se, te,* with the three values of *e*), one represents “consonant + *o*” (*to*). For initial vowels, there is a single sign transliterated a, which represents /a/, /u/, and probably /o/ and /ə/. Initial /e/ and /i/ were written *e* and *i* until the first century CE. In later times, they were written *ye* and *yi* with a dummy *y,* which was not pronounced. Finally, the texts include a word-divider, made of two dots like our modern colon, which is used (more or less regularly) between words or more commonly between the different clauses of a sentence. -The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remains a few unclear points. Until recently, it was supposed that the sign 𐦭, transliterated formerly *ḫ,* and *x* according to the revised conventions,[^4] had only the value [χ], a velar fricative like Egyptian *ḫ.* A second sign, which can replace *x* in several variant spellings, is 𐦮, presently transliterated *h,* formerly *ẖ*. I suggested that *h* was a labialized version of *x,* in IPA [χʷ], because it mainly occurs before or after labiovelar vowels [o] or [u]. These two values [χ] and [χʷ] are evidenced by the use of *x* and *h* in Meroitic transcriptions of Egyptian words. The same distribution can be observed between *k* and *q,* the latter being a labialized velar consonant [kʷ]. However, in the Old Nubian alphabet, the Meroitic sign 𐦭 *x* was borrowed, not for the velar fricative consonant [χ], for which the Coptic sign ϩ was used, but for the velar nasal consonant /ŋ/, written ⳟ. Furthermore, in several Egyptian transcriptions of Meroitic royal names that include *x* or *h,* the scribes used a digraph *nḫ.*[^5] My impression is therefore that the signs *x* and *h* had a double set of values: [χ] and [χʷ] in loanwords from Egyptian and [ŋ], and [ŋʷ] in native words. This assumption is supported by strong arguments but still needs to be checked word by word. +The sound values of the Meroitic signs are generally known,[^x4] but there remains a few unclear points. Until recently, it was supposed that the sign 𐦭, transliterated formerly *ḫ,* and *x* according to the revised conventions,[^4] had only the value [χ], a velar fricative like Egyptian *ḫ.* A second sign, which can replace *x* in several variant spellings, is *h,* formerly *ẖ*. I suggested that *h* was a labialized version of *x,* in IPA [χʷ], because it mainly occurs before or after labiovelar vowels [o] or [u]. These two values [χ] and [χʷ] are evidenced by the use of *x* and *h* in Meroitic transcriptions of Egyptian words. The same distribution can be observed between *k* and *q,* the latter being a labialized velar consonant [kʷ]. However, in the Old Nubian alphabet, the Meroitic sign 𐦭 *x* was borrowed, not for the velar fricative consonant [χ], for which the Coptic sign ϩ was used, but for the velar nasal consonant /ŋ/, written ⳟ. Furthermore, in several Egyptian transcriptions of Meroitic royal names that include *x* or *h,* the scribes used a digraph *nḫ.*[^5] My impression is therefore that the signs *x* and *h* had a double set of values: [χ] and [χʷ] in loanwords from Egyptian and [ŋ], and [ŋʷ] in native words. This assumption is supported by strong arguments but still needs to be checked word by word. -[^x4]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 359-407. +[^x4]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 359–407. [^4]: See Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” p. 67, no. 10. -[^5]: For further details, see Rilly, “Upon Hintze's Shoulders,” pp. 28-29. +[^5]: For further details, see Rilly, “Upon Hintze's Shoulders,” pp. 28–29. A last peculiarity, pertaining rather to phonetic changes than to spelling conventions, needs to be mentioned here because it will be found in some of the following quotations from Meroitic texts. From the first century CE onwards, the sequence /s/ + /l/ (written *se* + *l*), which was frequent in Meroitic due to the use of the article *-l* at the end of noun phrases, merged into /t/. For example, the sentence written *kdise-l-o* “she is the daughter” became *kdit-o*. This phonetic development is known as “Griffith’s law”.[^6] -[^6]: Formerly known as “Hestermann’s law”, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 415-420. +[^6]: Formerly known as “Hestermann’s law”, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 415–420. # The Third Person Markers {#ii} Among the possible markers of the third person, only pronouns are known so far, namely *qo/qe* and variants for singular and *qoleb* for plural. No verbal ending that could be connected with the third person, such as Latin *-t/-nt* or Egyptian *=f/=sn,* has been spotted in the texts. The case of the “verbal dative” will be later investigated, but this morpheme is probably to be classified as a clitic pronoun. -In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Whereas the 1st and 2nd persons refer to the protagonists of the uttering situation (see n. 1 [CHECK]), the 3rd person refers to people and things that are outside this situation. According to the relevant categorization of Arab grammarians, the 3rd person is “the absentee.”[^7] From this perspective, 3rd person pronouns are close to demonstratives. This is particularly obvious when it comes to morphology. In many languages, these pronouns are derived from demonstratives. In Romance languages for example, they stem from the Latin distal demonstrative *ille* “that”, for instance French *il* “he”, Spanish *él,* Romanian *el.* Some languages even use the same word for the demonstrative and the 3rd person pronoun.[^8] In Latin, the proximal demonstrative *is, ea, id* “this” was used as a 3rd person pronoun. In Turkish, a language that displays a full range of typological similarities with Meroitic,[^9] the same demonstrative *o* is used as a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun and a 3rd person pronoun.[^y3] This seems also to be the case in Meroitic, which has apparently the same word, *qo/qe,* for “this” (adjective), “this” (pronoun), and “he”, “she”, “it.”[^ex2] +In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Whereas the 1st and 2nd persons refer to the protagonists of the uttering situation (see n. 6), the 3rd person refers to people and things that are outside this situation. According to the relevant categorization of Arab grammarians, the 3rd person is “the absentee.”[^7] From this perspective, 3rd person pronouns are close to demonstratives. This is particularly obvious when it comes to morphology. In many languages, these pronouns are derived from demonstratives. In Romance languages for example, they stem from the Latin distal demonstrative *ille* “that”, for instance French *il* “he”, Spanish *él,* Romanian *el.* Some languages even use the same word for the demonstrative and the 3rd person pronoun.[^8] In Latin, the proximal demonstrative *is, ea, id* “this” was used as a 3rd person pronoun. In Turkish, a language that displays a full range of typological similarities with Meroitic,[^9] the same demonstrative *o* is used as a demonstrative adjective, a demonstrative pronoun and a 3rd person pronoun.[^y3] This seems also to be the case in Meroitic, which has apparently the same word, *qo/qe,* for “this” (adjective), “this” (pronoun), and “he”, “she”, “it.”[^ex2] [^y3]: Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 1,* 2006: p. 91. [^7]: In Arabic *ghâ‘ib,* cf. Cotte, *Langage et linéarité,* p. 130. -[^8]: In addition to Latin, this feature can be found in Korean, Hindi, Panjabi, Marathi, Mongolian, etc. See Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 103-105. -[^9]: These similarities are due to common typological features and do not originate from a common genealogical origin. Turkish is, like Meroitic or Nubian, an agglutinative language, with no grammatical gender and an SOV word-order, cf. Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 497-502. +[^8]: In addition to Latin, this feature can be found in Korean, Hindi, Panjabi, Marathi, Mongolian, etc. See Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 103–105. +[^9]: These similarities are due to common typological features and do not originate from a common genealogical origin. Turkish is, like Meroitic or Nubian, an agglutinative language, with no grammatical gender and an SOV word-order, cf. Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 497–502. [^ex2]: In (2), Malutuna is traditionally transcribed “Maloton.” This viceroy of Lower Nubia (*peseto*), living at the end of the 3rd century CE, is famous for his beautiful *ba* statue kept in the Nubian Museum in Aswan. ## Demonstrative Pronoun or Independent Third Person Pronoun Object? {#ii1} @@ -85,14 +85,14 @@ In the paradigm of personal pronouns, the 3rd person has a special place. Wherea The pronoun *qo* was among the first elements that Griffith singled out in the funerary inscriptions after his decipherment of the script.[^x5] The word occurred in final position in the “nomination” of the deceased, either bare (1) or followed by an optional particle *-wi* “for emphasis” (2).[^11] Quite often, another *qo* preceded the name of the deceased (3). Griffith suggested that this first *qo* was an epithet meaning “honorable” or “noble” and the final *qo* was a grammatical tool “to introduce the name of the deceased.” In his *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* Hintze was the first to regard *qo* as a demonstrative pronoun.[^x505] According to him, the original form of this word was *qe* and the predicative compound *qo(wi)* was composed of *qe* + copula *-o* ± particle *-wi.* Actually, *qe* is a variant spelling of *qo* and the two forms were pronounced /ku/,[^12] so that *qo(wi)* can be analysed also as *qo* + copula *-o* ± particle *-wi* with a merger of the two consecutive *o*’s. The additional *qo* at the beginning (3), found in 10% of the epitaphs, is used as a topic “this one, this is….”[^13] It emphasizes the deixis that connects the inscription and the deceased, since these texts were inscribed on offering-tables or stelae that were placed at the entrance and inside the funerary chapels respectively. [^x5]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* p. 120. -[^x505]: Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* pp. 53-56. -[^11]: The function of this particle is not yet identified (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 386-387). -[^12]: The frequent variants *qe/qo* here and in other words (for example *Aqedise/Aqodise* “Moon-god” in the texts from the Lion temple in Naga) is best explained by the labialized articulation /kʷ/ of the sign *q*: see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 374-379. +[^x505]: Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* pp. 53–56. +[^11]: The function of this particle is not yet identified (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 386–387). +[^12]: The frequent variants *qe/qo* here and in other words (for example *Aqedise/Aqodise* “Moon-god” in the texts from the Lion temple in Naga) is best explained by the labialized articulation /kʷ/ of the sign *q*: see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 374–379. [^13]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 547. The literal translation “this one, this is...,” which is used above, is somewhat unnatural in English. In spoken French, the topicalization of the subject is overwhelmingly frequent and sentences such as *celui-ci, c’est…* or even *ça, c’est…,* literally “this, this is” are very common. {{< gloss "(4)" >}} {g} *kdi*,woman|***qo***:,this|*Mitslbe*,Mitasalabe|*q(o)-o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| -{r} “This woman, this is Mitasalabe.” (REM 0088, epitaph) +{r} “This woman, this is Mitasalabe.” (REM 0087, epitaph) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(5)" >}} @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ In these examples, the determiner is apparently attached, not to the demonstrati [^ex8]: In (8), the titles *ssmrte* and *wtotrse* cannot yet be translated. The former is probably an early form of the title *ssimete* frequently attested in later texts and which is connected to the cult of the gods in several instances. The second one is a hapax legomenon. It is presumably a compound word (*wto-tr-se*) including possibly an indirect genitive with postposition *-se*. {{< gloss "(8)" >}} -{g} *Atnene :*,Atanene|*ssmrte-l :*,(title)-[det]({sc})|*Imlotror :*,Imalutarura|*wtotrse-l :*,(title)-[det]({sc})|***qoleb*** *:*,[3pl]({sc})|*Amnp :*,(to) Amanap|*i-de-bx :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-give(?)-[3pl.o]({sc})| +{g} *Atnene :*,Atanene|*ssmrte-l :*,(title)-[det]({sc})|*Imlotror :*,Imalutarura|*wtotrse-l :*,(title)-[det]({sc})|***qoleb*** *:*,[3pl]({sc})|*Amnp :*,(to) Amanap|*i-de-bx :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-give(?)-[vnm.pl]({sc})| {r} “Atanene, the *ssmrte* (and) Imalutarura, the *wtotrse*, I gave(?) them to Amanap.” (REM 1044/25–26) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -137,8 +137,8 @@ Example (8) is quoted from the great stela of king Taneyidamani kept in Boston. Whereas Hintze regarded *qe/qo* as a demonstrative, Hofmann held it as a personal pronoun because it is the basis of the 3rd person possessive marker, *qese* and variants.[^x8] It is found mainly after the kinship terms, as in (9) below, drawn from a funerary stela where two brothers are commemorated.[^ex9] -[^x8]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 334-338. -[^ex9]: In (9), the kinship term *yetmde* is applied to younger members of the same maternal line (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* 526-527). It mostly designates “nephews” and “nieces,” who are referring to a prestigious uncle in the descriptive part of their epitaph, but in rare cases such as this one, it can be applied to a younger brother. +[^x8]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 334–338. +[^ex9]: In (9), the kinship term *yetmde* is applied to younger members of the same maternal line (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 526–527). It mostly designates “nephews” and “nieces,” who are referring to a prestigious uncle in the descriptive part of their epitaph, but in rare cases such as this one, it can be applied to a younger brother. {{< gloss "(9)" >}} {g} *Qoreqore-l-o-wi* [:,Qurqurla-[cop-emp]({sc})|*y*]*etmde*,relative|***qese*** *:*,[3sg.gen]({sc})|*Qoretkr*,Qurtakara|*q(o)-o-wi :*,this-[cop-emp]({sc})| @@ -147,11 +147,11 @@ Whereas Hintze regarded *qe/qo* as a demonstrative, Hofmann held it as a persona The possessive of the 3rd person singular includes the pronoun *qo/qe,* followed by the genitival postposition *-se* and means literally “of him/her.”[^x9] Once again, it can be compared with Latin demonstrative *is, ea, id,* whose genitive *eius* is also used as a 3rd person singular possessive. Three variants are known: *qose,* very rare, *eqese* in REM 1003, and *aqese,* much more common.[^20] Unexpectedly, the 3rd person plural possessive is not *\*qolebse,* but *qebese,* as can be seen in (10), drawn from an epitaph from Gebel Adda that was written for a deceased whose relatives were administrators and scribes from the temple of Isis. Like (3) and (4) above, the sentence includes a topicalized constituent. The genitival phrase (i.e., the officials of the temple) is the topic and is referred to in the predication by the anaphoric possessive *qebese* (their nephew). -[^x9]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 550-551. -[^20]: The initial *a* in *aqese* and in the variants of the 3rd plural possessive, *aqebese* and *aqobese* are unexplained. It is possible that this *a* is etymological and that, in this case, the forms *qese* and *qebese* result from apheresis (a widespread development in Meroitic, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 290-291). In some instances, however, a non-etymological *a* is added at the beginning of a word for unknown reasons, for example *Ams-i* “oh (sun-god) Masha” in REM 0091C instead of expected *Ms-i.* +[^x9]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 550–551. +[^20]: The initial *a* in *aqese* and in the variants of the 3rd plural possessive, *aqebese* and *aqobese* are unexplained. It is possible that this *a* is etymological and that, in this case, the forms *qese* and *qebese* result from apheresis (a widespread development in Meroitic, see Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 290–291). In some instances, however, a non-etymological *a* is added at the beginning of a word for unknown reasons, for example *Ams-i* “oh (sun-god) Masha” in REM 0091C instead of expected *Ms-i.* {{< gloss "(10)" >}} -{g} *perite :*,agent|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*qorene*,royal.scribe|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*yetmde*,nephew|***qebese***-*l-o-wi :*,[3pl.gen-det-cop-emp]({sc})| +{g} *perite :*,agent|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*qorene*,royal scribe|*Wos-se-leb :*,Isis-[gen-det.pl]({sc})|*yetmde*,nephew|***qebese***-*l-o-wi :*,[3pl.gen-det-cop-emp]({sc})| {r} “He was the nephew of agents of Isis and royal scribes (?) of Isis.” (GA. 04, epitaph) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -168,61 +168,61 @@ The possessive *qebe-se* includes *qebe-,* a plural form of *qo* that is more co The funerary inscriptions from the Karanog and Shablul cemeteries were the first texts published by Griffith, after his decipherment of the script. He was able to get a rough understanding of their content, but could not yet deliver a detailed analysis of the verbal compounds that end the benedictions. The first two benediction formulae, commonly named A and B, are prayers to Isis and Osiris, asking them to provide the deceased with water and bread respectively, as can be seen in (11)–(14).[^21] -[^21]: A third formula for “a good meal” is oftentimes added. A dozen of additional formulae are known, but they are less frequent. See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163-183; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 68-74. +[^21]: A third formula for “a good meal” is oftentimes added. A dozen of additional formulae are known, but they are less frequent. See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163–183; Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 68–74. {{< gloss "(11)" >}} {r} Formula A, singular beneficiary -{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pso-he-(xe)-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-drink-[3sg.o-opt.2pl]({sc})| +{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pso-he-(xe)-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-drink-[vnm.sg-opt.2pl]({sc})| {r} “May you cause him/her to drink plentiful water!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(12)" >}} {r} Formula A, plural beneficiary -{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pso-he-bxe-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-drink-[3pl.o-opt.2pl]({sc})| +{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pso-he-bxe-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-drink-[vnm.pl-opt.2pl]({sc})| {r} “May you cause them to drink plentiful water!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(13)" >}} {r} Formula B, singular beneficiary -{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*psi-xr-(xe)-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-eat-[3sg.o-opt.2pl]({sc})| +{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*psi-xr-(xe)-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-eat-[vnm.sg-opt.2pl]({sc})| {r} “May you cause him/her to eat plentiful bread!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(14)" >}} {r} Formula B, plural beneficiary -{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*psi-xr-bxe-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-eat-[3pl.o-opt.2pl]({sc})| +{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*psi-xr-bxe-k(e)te*,[caus]({sc})-eat-[vnm.pl-opt.2pl]({sc})| {r} “May you cause them to eat plentiful bread!” {{< /gloss >}} Meroitic is an agglutinative language, but it has a strong propensity to assimilative processes that blur the boundaries between successive morphemes.[^22] However, Griffith managed to identify the element *-bx* or *-bxe* as a “plural ending in the funerary formulae”, which appeared each time several individuals were commemorated in the same epitaph.[^23] In his *Beiträge,* Hintze was the first to suggest a plausible segmentation of these verbal compounds.[^24] He showed that *-bxe* (which, meanwhile, had been termed “dative infix”) had a singular counterpart *-x* or *-xe*[^25] that was theoretically present in the verbal compound, but concealed by a nearly systematic assimilation to the following suffix.[^26] Only in the archaic versions of formulae A and B (15)–(16) was this singular “infix” visible. -[^22]: See Comrie, *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,* pp. 43-19 for an updated interpretation of this old classification of languages. -[^23]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* p. 14 and n. 1, pp. 25-26, 45. -[^24]: Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* pp. 65-66, 73-74. +[^22]: See Comrie, *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology,* pp. 43–19 for an updated interpretation of this old classification of languages. +[^23]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* p. 14 and n. 1, pp. 25–26, 45. +[^24]: Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* pp. 65–66, 73–74. [^25]: The form *-x* (= /xa/ or /ŋa/) and *-bx* (= /baxa/ or /baŋa/) are early. They later became *-xe* (= /x/ or /ŋ/) and *-bxe* (= /bax/ or /baŋ/). It is noted that the sign transliterated *e* can have a zero-vowel value (see [3](#i) for the principles of the Meroitic script). [^26]: The suffixes *-xe* and *-bxe* end with the consonant /x/, which assimilated to the subsequent suffix *-ke.* However, similar assimilation is rare with the plural suffix *-bxe.* In early texts, the suffixes were *-x* and *-bx,* with default vowel /a/. This final vowel explains why there was no assimilation with the following suffix. {{< gloss "(15)" >}} {r} Formula A (archaic) -{g} *ato*,water|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| +{g} *ato*,water|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[vnm.sg-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “May you give him/her plentiful water!” (REM 0427) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(16)" >}} {r} Formula B (archaic) -{g} *at*,bread|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| +{g} *at*,bread|*mlo*,good|*el-x-te*,give-[vnm.sg-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “May you give him/her plentiful bread!” (REM 0427) {{< /gloss >}} The same wording occurs in the prayers to the gods that were engraved near their figures in votive stelae (17) or in Meroitic temples (18). In the latter example, cited from the Lion temple in Naga, the beneficiaries are the king, his mother, and the prince. {{< gloss "(17)" >}} -{g} *A*[*pe*]*dem*[*k-i*],Apedemak-[voc]({sc})|*Tneyidmni*,Taneyidamani|*pwrite*,life|*el-x-te*,give-[3sg.o-opt]({sc})| +{g} *A*[*pe*]*dem*[*k-i*],Apedemak-[voc]({sc})|*Tneyidmni*,Taneyidamani|*pwrite*,life|*el-x-te*,give-[vnm.sg-opt]({sc})| {r} “O Apedemak! May you give life to Taneyidamani!” (REM 0405) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(18)" >}} -{g}*Apedemk-i*,Apedemak-[voc]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*l-bx-te*,give-[3pl.o-opt]({sc})| +{g}*Apedemk-i*,Apedemak-[voc]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*l-bx-te*,give-[vnm.pl-opt]({sc})| {r} “O Apedemak! May you give life to them!” (REM 0018) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -230,8 +230,8 @@ The same wording occurs in the prayers to the gods that were engraved near their In an early analysis of these sentences,[^x11] I interpreted this “dative infix” as an applicative suffix, with reference to Kanuri, a Saharan language. Applicatives are used to encode a beneficiary of the action in the verb, instead of adding an adposition or a case ending to the noun. They are quite common among African languages and are for example found in Nubian.[^27] However, this can hardly apply to the Meroitic construction. The applicative is a voice, such as passive and causative, and the affixes it uses cannot convey the notions of singular or plural. Example (19) from a Bantu language, Tswana, shows that the same applicative suffix *-el* is used regardless of the beneficiaries’ number.[^28] -[^x11]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 553-554. -[^27]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 121-122 and n. 3. Nile Nubian (Nobiin and Mattokki/Andaandi) uses applicative suffixes that are nothing but a grammaticalized forms of the two verbs “to give,” *deen* and *tir.* In other languages, they may result from the incorporation of adpositions in the verbal compound, as is the case in Amharic (Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 2,* p. 39). +[^x11]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 553–554. +[^27]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 121–122 and n. 3. Nile Nubian (Nobiin and Mattokki/Andaandi) uses applicative suffixes that are nothing but a grammaticalized forms of the two verbs “to give,” *deen* and *tir.* In other languages, they may result from the incorporation of adpositions in the verbal compound, as is the case in Amharic (Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 2,* p. 39). [^28]: Adapted from Creissels, *Syntaxe générale 2,* pp. 74, 76. In (19c), the added gloss “3:1.s” means “subject 3rd person, Bantu nominal class 1.” {{< gloss "(19a)" >}} @@ -258,14 +258,14 @@ In addition, this morpheme was first identified as a beneficiary marker from the {{< gloss "(20)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** -{g} *kdi*,woman|*mdxe*,virgin|*35*,35|*anese*,donkey|*25 :*,25|*kelw :*,also|∅-*arohe-bx*,[1sg.s]({sc})-take.control-[3pl.o]({sc})| +{g} *kdi*,woman|*mdxe*,virgin|*35*,35|*anese*,donkey|*25 :*,25|*kelw :*,also|∅-*arohe-bx*,[1sg.s]({sc})-take.control-[vnm.pl]({sc})| {r} “I took control of 35 virgins and 25 donkeys.” (REM 1333/16) {{< /gloss >}} For these two reasons, in a later analysis,[^13] I considered *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* to be object personal pronouns that had been incorporated into the verbal compound as clitics. A similar enclisis can be found, for instance, in the imperative forms of Romance languages,[^x14] especially in Spanish: *dámelo* “give it to me”, *presentémonos* “let us introduce ourselves.” -[^x13]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 395-398. -[^x14]: Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 297-298. +[^x13]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 395–398. +[^x14]: Jacquesson, *Les personnes,* pp. 297–298. This analysis, however, does not account for the location of these so-called clitic personal markers inside the verbal compound. In the examples from Spanish above, they occur in final position, as is expected for external elements that were later added to a fully inflected form. In Meroitic, as can be seen in (11)–(18), they are directly attached to the verbal stem and followed by the subject person marker and tense–aspect–mood (TAM) endings. For that reason it was termed “infix” and not “suffix.” @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ This analysis, however, does not account for the location of these so-called cli The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be compared with that of the verbal number marker in two groups of the NES linguistic family, Nyima and Nubian. In these languages, the plurality of the subject in intransitive constructions and of the object in transitive constructions (“ergative pattern”) is realized by the same verbal suffix which is added directly to the verbal stem, before the TAM suffixes. The clearest instances of this construction are found in the Nyima language Ama and involve an ergative-pattern verbal plural marker[^29] *-(ì)d̪ì* as shown in (21)–(22). -[^29]: An in-depth analysis of this construction in Ama can be found in Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs.” This author prefers to speak of “distributive” rather than “plural” (ibid., 78). His stance is supported by a series of five examples, which can be nonetheless analysed as a particular case of plural construction. In her study of verbal plural in Nubian, Jakobi states that “verbal number – realized by distinct singular and plural verb stems – can have both aspectual and morphosyntactic functions. On the one hand these stems may encode habitual, progressive, iterative, repetitive, distributive, or even single events, on the other hand these stems may encode the participants affected by these events” (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 117). +[^29]: An in-depth analysis of this construction in Ama can be found in Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs.” This author prefers to speak of “distributive” rather than “plural” (ibid., p. 78). His stance is supported by a series of five examples, which can be nonetheless analysed as a particular case of plural construction. In her study of verbal plural in Nubian, Jakobi states that “verbal number – realized by distinct singular and plural verb stems – can have both aspectual and morphosyntactic functions. On the one hand these stems may encode habitual, progressive, iterative, repetitive, distributive, or even single events, on the other hand these stems may encode the participants affected by these events” (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 117). {{< gloss "(21a)" >}} {r} **Ama** @@ -298,9 +298,9 @@ The unexpected location of *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* in the verbal complex can be com In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is found in Midob.[^y2] In Kordofan Nubian, a similar suffix *-c* is attested along with others suffixes, such as *-Vr,* which is much more frequent. Recent publications showed that the Nubian suffixes function according to the same ergative pattern as the Ama suffix.[^31] Example (23) illustrates the use of the suffix to mark subject plurality with intransitive verbs, whereas examples (24)–(25) show the suffix marking object plurality with transitive verbs.[^ex23] -[^y2]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* 49. -[^30]: *-V* stands here for “vowel”. See Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 117-122 for Old Nubian, Nobiin, and Mattokki–Andaandi. In the latter group, *-(i)j* is only a pluractional marker whereas the plural marker (only for objects) is *-ir.* For *-c* as a verbal number marker in Tagle, a Kordofan Nubian language, see Jakobi, Ibrahim \& Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” exx. 5-6, 19, 20. -[^31]: The suffix *-(i)j* is mentioned in Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1 who calls it "pluractional" and in Werner 1989: 173-175, who speaks of “plural object extension” but not of plural subject marking. Recent and more explicit studies are Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” Jakobi 2017, and Jakobi et al., forthcoming. +[^y2]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* p. 49. +[^30]: *-V* stands here for “vowel”. See Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 117–122 for Old Nubian, Nobiin, and Mattokki–Andaandi. In the latter group, *-(i)j* is only a pluractional marker whereas the plural marker (only for objects) is *-ir.* For *-c* as a verbal number marker in Tagle, a Kordofan Nubian language, see Jakobi, Ibrahim \& Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” exx. 5–6, 19, 20. +[^31]: The suffix *-(i)j* is mentioned in Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1 who calls it "pluractional" and in Werner 1989: 173–175, who speaks of “plural object extension” but not of plural subject marking. Recent and more explicit studies are Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” Jakobi 2017, and Jakobi et al., forthcoming. [^ex23]: Examples from Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 65, ex. 9; p. 64, exx. 3, 4. {{< gloss "(23)" >}} @@ -321,21 +321,21 @@ In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this suffix is *-(i)j.* A related marker *-j-* is foun It is noteworthy that, unlike in the Ama examples above, the plural marking operated by the suffix *-(i)j* is redundant, since plurality is already marked by the subject pronoun *ter* “they” in (23) and the plural nominal suffix *-guu* in (25). In Ama, apart from rare instances of replacive patterns such as *wīd̪ɛ́ŋ* “child”/*dŕīŋ* “children,” and a plural suffix *-gí/-ŋì* which can be attached to kinship terms, plurality in unmarked in nouns. This makes it necessary, either to mark it by determiners (“several,” “many”, etc.) or to encode it in the verb by a specific marker, as showed in (20b) and (21b) above. -Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to mark the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons – but areal influence probably played a major role in it – each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “In the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17] +Considering that the nominal plural suffixes that can be found in the NES languages are so diverse that no protoform can be reconstructed, it is plausible that Proto-NES had no plural nominal markers, but only a few replacive patterns and collective nouns with singulatives forms marked by a suffix *\*-tV*.[^x15] It was therefore necessary to encode the plurals of the participants in the verbal compound. Proto-Nubian seems to have been in this regard close to its ancestor Proto-NES.[^x16] Later on, for unknown reasons – but areal influence probably played a major role in it – each Nubian group worked out its own plural markers for all the nouns. This novelty of course competed with the earlier plural marking by verbal suffixes. However, both of them survived to this day, but they often follow economy principles. Khalil notes that “the *j*-suffix appears sporadically in the intransitive clause” and that “In the transitive clause […], when the object noun phrase is modified by a numeral or a quantifier such as *mallee* [many] or *minkellee* [how many], the plural marker on the object noun phrase becomes optional and subsequently the suffixation of *-j* becomes optional, too.”[^x17] [^x15]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 350. -[^x16]: Ibid., 272. +[^x16]: Ibid., p. 272. [^x17]: Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” pp. 64–65. -A third use of verbal plural markers in NES languages is to encode in ditransitive verbs the plurality of the indirect object, i.e., the beneficiary or recipient of the action. In this construction, the plural verbal suffix refers to the indirect object and not to the object in Old Nubian[^x50] and Nobiin[^32] and probably in Ama. For the latter language, I have unfortunately no clear example of this point in my limited fieldwork data, but an example provided by Norton illustrates this point for dual, which operates exactly like plural, but with the suffix *-ɛ̄n/-ēn* (the macron stands for middle tone here).[^x51] +A third use of verbal plural markers in NES languages is to encode in ditransitive verbs the plurality of the indirect object, i.e., the beneficiary or recipient of the action. In this construction, the plural verbal suffix refers to the indirect object and not to the object in Old Nubian[^x50] and Nobiin[^32] and probably in Ama. For the latter language, I have unfortunately no clear example of this point in my limited fieldwork data, but an example provided by Norton illustrates this point for dual, which operates exactly like plural, but with the suffix *-ɛ̄n/-ēn* (the macron stands for mid tone).[^x51] [^x50]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §13.1.3. -[^32]: In Kordofan Nubian language Karko, unlike in Nobiin, the verbal number marker refers to the direct object even in ditransitive construction (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 164-165). The example she gives (“Dry the pots for the woman”), compared with the Nobiin example (28) above, shows that at least in this language, the participant hierarchy is not connected with the degree of animacy of the two objects, direct and indirect. See, however, n. 35 below. +[^32]: In Kordofan Nubian language Karko, unlike in Nobiin, the verbal number marker refers to the direct object even in ditransitive construction (Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 164–165). The example she gives (“Dry the pots for the woman”), compared with the Nobiin example (28) above, shows that at least in this language, the participant hierarchy is not connected with the degree of animacy of the two objects, direct and indirect. See, however, n. 59 below. [^x51]: Example from Norton, "Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 86, ex. 35. {{< gloss "(26)" >}} {r} **Ama** -{g} *àɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*əm̄ōr-ì*,friend-[dat]({sc})|*āmɪɛ̄r̄*,pen|*tɛ̪ɡ̄-ɛn̄ɪ̀*,give-[du]({sc})| +{g} *àɪ̀*,[1sg]({sc})|*bā*,[ver]({sc})|*əm̄ōr-ì*,friend-[dat]({sc})|*āmɪɛ̄r̄*,pen|*t̪ɛɡ̄-ɛn̄ɪ̀*,give-[du]({sc})| {r} “I gave a pen to two friends.” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -356,27 +356,27 @@ Here, the verbal number marker refers to the beneficiary (“friend”) and not ### Plural Object Marking in Meroitic {#ii33} -The verbal number marking in these languages follows a syntactic hierarchy: it refers to the subject if there is no object, to the object if there is no beneficiary and to the beneficiary if there is one. This brings us back to Meroitic, in which the so-called “verbal dative” again has close parallels with the Ama and Nobiin verbal number marker. Unfortunately, no clear instance of *-x(e)/-bx(e)* can be found with intransitive verbs, mainly because none has been so far translated with certainty. Unlike Ama (20ab), Meroitic does not use a real verb “to be,” but a copula which is inflected for plural with a different suffix. Nonetheless, transitive and ditransitive constructions display the same hierarchy for the use of the verbal plural suffix as Ama and Nobiin. +The verbal number marking in these languages follows a syntactic hierarchy: it refers to the subject if there is no object, to the object if there is no beneficiary and to the beneficiary if there is one. This brings us back to Meroitic, in which the so-called “verbal dative” again has close parallels with the Ama and Nobiin verbal number marker. Unfortunately, no clear instance of *-x(e)/-bx(e)* can be found with intransitive verbs, mainly because none has been so far translated with certainty. Unlike Ama (21a–b), Meroitic does not use a real verb “to be,” but a copula which is inflected for plural with a different suffix. Nonetheless, transitive and ditransitive constructions display the same hierarchy for the use of the verbal plural suffix as Ama and Nobiin. -Examples (29) and (30) are prayers to Amun, said by a fictive enunciator, in favour of king Amanakhareqerema (end of 1st c. CE). The first is engraved upon the base of ram statues from the entrance of the king’s temple in El-Hassa (REM 0001 and 1151[^x18]) and the second is a wall inscription from Temple 200 in Naga.[^x19] The long epithet of Amun, which is irrelevant to the present discussion, is omitted. Example (31) is one of the four columns of text engraved on the shaft of each of the sandstone columns in the Amun Temple in Naga (REM 0034A).[^ex31] Each of these inscriptions is a prayer to Amun, that he may give to the royal family the cardinal point it is facing (here “north”). The three members of the royal family are King Natakamani, Queen-Mother Amanitore, and Prince Arikakhataror. The epithet of Amun is again omitted here for convenience. +Examples (29) and (30) are prayers to Amun, said by a fictive enunciator, in favour of king Amanakhareqerema (end of 1st c. CE). The first is engraved upon the base of ram statues from the entrance of the king’s temple in El-Hassa (REM 0001 and 1151[^x18]) and the second is a wall inscription from Temple 200 in Naga.[^x19] The long epithet of Amun, which is irrelevant to the present discussion, is omitted. Example (31) is one of the four columns of text engraved on the shaft of each of the sandstone columns in the Amun Temple in Naga (REM 0034A).[^ex31] Each of these inscriptions is a prayer to Amun, that he may give to the royal family the cardinal point it is facing (here “north”). The three members of the royal family are King Natakamani, Queen-Mother Amanitore, and Prince Arakakhataror. The epithet of Amun is again omitted here for convenience. [^x18]: cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 90. [^x19]: Rilly, “The Meroitic Inscriptions of Temple Naga 200.” -[^ex31]: Aritene and Makedeke/Makedoke, “the Great God,” are two of Amun-Re’s numerous hypostases. The name Aritene is obviously a nominal compound and is consequently followed by the article *-l,* though scribes frequently omitted it. This determiner is mandatory here because the name is a direct genitive (Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 520-523). The meaning of Aritene is uncertain. It might be a Meroitic transcription *Ar-i-tene* of Egyptian *Harakhty* (Ḥr-ꜣḫt.y) “Horus of the Horizon,” where the “horizon” is reinterpreted as the “west”: cf. Meroitic *tene-ke-l* “west,” Nobiin *tin-o,* Ama *țêŋ* [CHECK] and words for “evening” or “night” in NES languages (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 141). +[^ex31]: Aritene and Makedeke/Makedoke, “the Great God,” are two of Amun-Re’s numerous hypostases. The name Aritene is obviously a nominal compound and is consequently followed by the article *-l,* though scribes frequently omitted it. This determiner is mandatory here because the name is a direct genitive (Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 520–523). The meaning of Aritene is uncertain. It might be a Meroitic transcription *Ar-i-tene* of Egyptian *Harakhty* (Ḥr-ꜣḫt.y) “Horus of the Horizon,” where the “horizon” is reinterpreted as the “west”: cf. Meroitic *tene-ke-l* “west,” Nobiin *tin-o,* Ama *t̪êŋ* and words for “evening” or “night” in NES languages (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 141). {{< gloss "(29)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** -{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Mnxreqerem*,Amanakhareqerema|*qore :*,ruler|*Mni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*tke-l :*,beloved-[det]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*l-x-te :*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| +{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Mnxreqerem*,Amanakhareqerema|*qore :*,ruler|*Mni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*tke-l :*,beloved-[det]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*l-x-te :*,give-[vnm.sg-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “O Amun (…), to Amanakhareqerema, ruler beloved of Amun, may you give life!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(30)" >}} -{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Mnxreqerem*,Amanakhareqerema|*qore :*,ruler|*Mni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*tke-l :*,beloved-[det]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*ntke :*,strength|*kesekene*,also|*l-x-te :*,give-[3sg.o-opt.2sg]({sc})| +{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Mnxreqerem*,Amanakhareqerema|*qore :*,ruler|*Mni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*tke-l :*,beloved-[det]({sc})|*pwrite :*,life|*ntke :*,strength|*kesekene*,also|*l-x-te :*,give-[vnm.sg-opt.2sg]({sc})| {r} “O Amun (…), to Amanakhareqerema, ruler beloved of Amun, may you give life and strength!” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(31)" >}} -{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Ntkmni*,Natakamani|*Amni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*mdese-l :*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*Mnitore*,Amanitore|*Aritene-l*,Aritene-[det.gen]({sc})|*mdese-l*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*Arkxtror*,Arikakhataror|*Mke-deke-l*,God-great-[det.gen]({sc})|*mdese-l :*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*hr-l :*,north-[det]({sc})|*alose :*,entirely|*l-bx*-∅-*te :*,give-[3pl.o-2sg-opt]({sc})| +{g} *Amni* (…),Amun|*Ntkmni*,Natakamani|*Amni*,Amun.[gen]({sc})|*mdese-l :*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*Mnitore*,Amanitore|*Aritene-l*,Aritene-[det.gen]({sc})|*mdese-l*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*Arkxtror*,Arakakhataror|*Mke-deke-l*,God-great-[det.gen]({sc})|*mdese-l :*,descendant-[det]({sc})|*hr-l :*,north-[det]({sc})|*alose :*,entirely|*l-bx*-∅-*te :*,give-[vnm.pl-2sg-opt]({sc})| {r} “O Amun (…), to Natakamani, the descendant of Amun, to Amanitore, the descendant of (the) Aritene, to Arakakhataror, the descendant of the Great God, may you give the north entirely!” {{< /gloss >}} @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ In (29), the singular suffix *-x* is added to the stem *l-* “give”. It refer ### The Verbal Plural Marker in NES Languages and in Meroitic {#ii34} -The Meroitic plural suffix *-bx(e)* shares three significant features with the verbal number markers in Ama and Nobiin: its direct adjunction to the stem within the verbal compound; its function as a plural marker of direct/indirect object; and its dependency on the hierarchy between participants of the action (cf. n. 57). Nonetheless, some important divergences can be observed. First of all, the Meroitic plural suffix is not a single morpheme like Ama *-(ī)d̪ì* and Nobiin *-(i)j* (where /i/ is a epenthetic vowel) but the plural form of a singular suffix *-x(e).* In languages where verbal number is an operative category, the most frequent situation contrasts unmarked singular and marked plural. Nonetheless, the growing literature on verbal number/pluractionality records some languages where there is an opposition between marked verbal singular and marked verbal plural. In her study of verbal number in Karko, a Kordofan Nubian language, Jakobi gives some instances of such verbs (**Table 1**). +The Meroitic plural suffix *-bx(e)* shares three significant features with the verbal number markers in Ama and Nobiin: its direct adjunction to the stem within the verbal compound; its function as a plural marker of direct/indirect object; and its dependency on the hierarchy between participants of the action (cf. n. 59). Nonetheless, some important divergences can be observed. First of all, the Meroitic plural suffix is not a single morpheme like Ama *-(ī)d̪ì* and Nobiin *-(i)j* (where /i/ is a epenthetic vowel) but the plural form of a singular suffix *-x(e).* In languages where verbal number is an operative category, the most frequent situation contrasts unmarked singular and marked plural. Nonetheless, the growing literature on verbal number/pluractionality records some languages where there is an opposition between marked verbal singular and marked verbal plural. In her study of verbal number in Karko, a Kordofan Nubian language, Jakobi gives some instances of such verbs (**Table 1**). | Gloss | Sg. Object | Pl. Object | | :--- | :--- | :--- | @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ The Meroitic plural suffix *-bx(e)* shares three significant features with the v **~~Table 1. Transitive verbs in Karko, singular stems marked by *-ɛɛr,* plural stems either unmarked or extended by *-Vk.*[^35]~~** -[^35]: Data from Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 126, t. 6. Only three of these verbs have specific markers both in singular and plural (“hang up,” “kindle,” “wake up”). In Karko, most of the verbs operate according to a pattern “unmarked singular/marked plural.” As in many languages where verbal number is present, the plural form can be a different verb (ibid., pp. 128-129). Several cases of replacive verbal forms for plural object marking are attested in Ama, see Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 77. +[^35]: Data from Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 126, t. 6. Only three of these verbs have specific markers both in singular and plural (“hang up,” “kindle,” “wake up”). In Karko, most of the verbs operate according to a pattern “unmarked singular/marked plural.” As in many languages where verbal number is present, the plural form can be a different verb (ibid., pp. 128–129). Several cases of replacive verbal forms for plural object marking are attested in Ama, see Norton, “Number in Ama Verbs,” p. 77. In Maba, a language of Ouaddai (Eastern Chad) belonging to the Nilo-Saharan phylum, Weiss recorded instances of singular verbal suffix *-n* versus plural verbal suffix *-k.*[^36] @@ -412,16 +412,16 @@ In Maba, a language of Ouaddai (Eastern Chad) belonging to the Nilo-Saharan phyl {{< gloss "(32a)" >}} {r} **Maba** -{g} *ɛ́njìː*,water|*à-wáː*-***k***-*ì*,[1sg]({sc})-pour-[pl-decl]({sc})| +{g} *ɛ́njìː*,water|*à-wáː*-***k***-*ì*,[1sg]({sc})-pour-[vnm.pl-decl]({sc})| {r} “I pour out a lot of water, I pour out water regularly.” {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(32b)" >}} -{g} *ɛ́njìː*,water|*à-wáː*-***n***-*ì*,[1sg]({sc})-pour-[sg-decl]({sc})| +{g} *ɛ́njìː*,water|*à-wáː*-***n***-*ì*,[1sg]({sc})-pour-[vnm.sg-decl]({sc})| {r} “I pour out a bit of water.” {{< /gloss >}} -However, these examples are utterly different from the Meroitic verbal number system. In each case, the singular and the verbal suffixes are independent. In Meroitic, the plural marker *-b-x(e)* is morphologically the plural of the singular marker *-x(e),* which might be termed not the “dative” suffix, because it also encodes the direct object, but the “objective” verbal suffix. In Meroitic, as in the related language groups Nubian and Taman, the accusative and the dative nominal cases are merged in an “objective” case and marked by the same case-endings. +However, these examples are utterly different from the Meroitic verbal number system. In each case, the singular and plural verbal suffixes are independent. In Meroitic, the plural marker *-b-x(e)* is morphologically the plural of the singular marker *-x(e),* which might be termed not the “dative” suffix, because it also encodes the direct object, but the “objective” verbal suffix. As in the related language groups Nubian and Taman, Meroitic merges the accusative and the dative nominal cases in an “objective” case marked by the same case endings. The second discrepancy between the Meroitic plural suffix and “canonical” number markers such as the Nubian plural suffix *-(i)j* is the range of their functions. Unlike Western European languages, where plurality of events is conveyed by lexical derivation (Latin *sal-t-a-re* “dance” from *sal-i-re* “jump”) or adverbs (“repeatedly,” “often,” “again and again,” etc.), with plurality of participants being encoded by verbal agreement and nominal or pronominal plural markers, verbal number is a category that includes equally all these pluralities. As this category falls between stem derivation and aspect, it is morphologically marked, either by modification of the verbal stem (syllable reduplication, vocalic or tonal change, etc.) or by affixes directly appended to the verbal stem. Consequently, in languages such as Nubian, where verbs are inflected by suffixation, verbal number markers are directly appended to the stem, before TAM or person markers. @@ -448,14 +448,14 @@ It may, however, be mentioned that in Nubian languages, few instances of the use [^38]: See Jakobi, Ibrahim & Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle,” §2, with further references, particularly Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar,* §§2880f, 3031f. [^y4]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 128. [^x20]: See also Khalil, “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin,” p. 37. -[^x21]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 130-132. +[^x21]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” pp. 130–132. -A distinct marker *-k* is found in Nubian for the plurality of events,[^x22] e.g., Nobiin *jòog* “grind” → *\*jook-k* → *jókk* “chew.” This suffix dates back to Proto-NES, or at least to its eastern branch, because it is also found in Nara and Meroitic.[^39] In Nara, it differentiates verbal forms such as *ishayto* (← *\*ishag-to*) “he asked” from *ishakkito* (← *\*ishag-k-i-to*) “he asked them” or “he asked several questions,” but is rarely used.[^x23] This suffix is also attested in Meroitic,[^40] as shown in the following example: +A distinct marker *-k* is found in Nubian for the plurality of events,[^x22] e.g., Nobiin *jòog* “grind” → *\*joog-k* > *jòkk* “chew.” This suffix dates back to Proto-NES, or at least to its eastern branch, because it is also found in Nara and Meroitic.[^39] In Nara, it differentiates verbal forms such as *ishayto* (< *\*ishag-to*) “he asked” from *ishakkito* (< *\*ishag-k-i-to*) “he asked them” or “he asked several questions,” but is rarely used.[^x23] This suffix is also attested in Meroitic,[^40] as shown in the following example: [^x22]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” p. 122 with further references. [^x23]: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 491. -[^39]: The morphology of event plurality marking in Tama seems complex (Dimmendaal 2009: 316) and needs a specific study. In the closely related language Mararit, it seems reduplication, which is cross-linguistically a very common way to form verbal plurals, is used (Elnazir Mustafa 2016: 55). In Ama, the same suffix *-īd̪ì* (see exx. 21-22) is used for plurality of participants and plurality of events. -[^40]: Several cases of “fossilized” suffix *-k* are attested in Meroitic, in which basic verb has disappeared whereas the form with *-k* has been preserved, but has lost its pluractional meaning. Examples are the verbs *erik-* “beget” and probably *tk-* “love” or “revere” in *Amni-tke-l* “beloved of Amun” (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 90-91). The former verb is still attested in Ajang (Kordofan Nubian) in both its forms: *ír-í* “give birth,” pluractional *ír-k-í* “give birth to one child after the other” (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 114). The second might be an assimilated form /takk/- of *\*tar-k-*, cf. Old Nubian ⲧⲁⲣⲟⲩ-, ⲧⲁⲣⲓ- “praise, bless,” Tama *tár-* “love.” +[^39]: The morphology of event plurality marking in Tama seems complex (Dimmendaal, “Tama,” p. 316) and needs a specific study. In the closely related language Mararit, it seems reduplication, which is cross-linguistically a very common way to form verbal plurals, is used (El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* p. 55). In Ama, the same suffix *-īd̪ì* (see exx. 21–22) is used for plurality of participants and plurality of events. +[^40]: Several cases of “fossilized” suffix *-k* are attested in Meroitic, in which basic verb has disappeared whereas the form with *-k* has been preserved, but has lost its pluractional meaning. Examples are the verbs *erik-* “beget” and probably *tk-* “love” or “revere” in *Amni-tke-l* “beloved of Amun” (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 90–91). The former verb is still attested in Ajang (Kordofan Nubian) in both its forms: *ír-í* “give birth,” pluractional *ír-k-í* “give birth to one child after the other” (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 114). The second might be an assimilated form /takk/- of *\*tar-k-*, cf. Old Nubian ⲧⲁⲣⲟⲩ-, ⲧⲁⲣⲓ- “praise, bless,” Tama *tár-* “love.” {{< gloss "(35)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ Although it encodes the plurality of events, it seems that this suffix cannot be {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(37)" >}} -{g} *abr :*,man|*58 :*,58|*kdi*,woman|*223* :,223|*qo-leb :*,this-[det.pl]({sc})|*apote*,envoy|*qebe-se :*,[3pl-gen]({sc})|*ye-tk-bx-i :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-seize-[3pl.o-tam]({sc})| +{g} *abr :*,man|*58 :*,58|*kdi*,woman|*223* :,223|*qo-leb :*,this-[det.pl]({sc})|*apote*,envoy|*qebe-se :*,[3pl-gen]({sc})|*ye-tk-bx-i :*,[1sg.s]({sc})-seize-[vnm.pl-tam]({sc})| {r} “I seized 58 men, 223 women (and) their envoy.” (REM 1003/12–13) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -485,21 +485,21 @@ The difference between Meroitic, where the pleonastic use of the two plurality m ### A New Hypothesis Concerning the Origin of *-bx(e)* {#ii36} -The plural object marker *-bx(e)* displays an astonishing feature, which has yet to be noted. One may expect that the plural of *-x(e)* to be *\*-x(e)b,* with a suffixed plural marker *-b,* as is the cases with other morphemes. The plural of the article *-l* is *-leb* and the possessive *qe-se* “his/her” (lit. “of him/her”) becomes *qe-be-se* “their” (lit. “of them”) when the possessor is in the plural (see [3.2](#ii2)). The unexpected initial location of the plural marker in the compound *-b-x(e)* is best explained by supposing that the plural morpheme *-b* was the basic element of this group. The object marker *-x(e)* was later added to it, and not the opposite. In this case, we can surmise that, originally, the verbal plural marker was simply *-b.* As is obvious from comparative pairs such as Proto-Nubian *\*nogu* ~ Meroitic *nob* /nuba/ “slave”; Proto-Nubian *\*aŋgur* ~ Meroitic *abore* /abur/ “elephant,” the Meroitic reflex of Proto-NES *\*g* followed or preceded by a labiovelar vowel is /b/.[^x25] The original verbal plural marker was therefore *\*gu.* In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this element is preserved as a nominal and pronominal plural marker: ⲙⲁⲛ /man/ “that,” ⲙⲁⲛⲛ̄-ⲅⲟⲩ /manin-gu/ “those.” +The plural object marker *-bx(e)* displays an astonishing feature, which has yet to be noted. One may expect the plural of *-x(e)* to be *\*-x(e)b,* with a suffixed plural marker *-b,* as is the cases with other morphemes. The plural of the article *-l* is *-leb* and the possessive *qe-se* “his/her” (lit. “of him/her”) becomes *qe-be-se* “their” (lit. “of them”) when the possessor is in the plural (see [3.2](#ii2)). The unexpected initial location of the plural marker in the compound *-b-x(e)* is best explained by supposing that the plural morpheme *-b* was the basic element of this group. The object marker *-x(e)* was later added to it, and not the opposite. In this case, we can surmise that, originally, the verbal plural marker was simply *-b.* As is obvious from comparative pairs such as Proto-Nubian *\*nogu* ~ Meroitic *nob* /nuba/ “slave”; Proto-Nubian *\*aŋgur* ~ Meroitic *abore* /abur/ “elephant,” the Meroitic reflex of Proto-NES *\*g* followed or preceded by a labiovelar vowel is /b/.[^x25] The original verbal plural marker was therefore *\*gu.* In Old Nubian and Nobiin, this element is preserved as a nominal and pronominal plural marker: ⲙⲁⲛ /man/ “that,” ⲙⲁⲛⲛ̄-ⲅⲟⲩ /manin-gu/ “those.” [^x25]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 373. -It is nevertheless unclear whether the Old Nubian and Nobiin verbal plural marker *-(i)j* (see [3.3.2](#ii32)) is a cognate of *\*gu.* The Proto-Nubian phoneme *\*ɟ* cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES, but principally derived from *\*g,* when followed or preceded by the palatal vowels *\*i* and *\*e*.[^x26] The Nubian verbal plural marker might accordingly result from a protoform *\*-ig.* Similarly, its Ama counterpart *-(ī)d̪ì* probably derived from *\*(-i)gi.* The Ama dental stops *t̪* and *d̪* are the regular reflexes of Proto-NES *\*k* and *\*g* with back vowels,[^x27] but there are some instances of the same development with palatal vowels, such as *kwɔ̀dŕ* “strong” ← Proto-NES *\*kugir*[^x280] or *tɛd̪i-ŋ* “under” ← Proto-NES *\*tago-* “belly.”[^x28] To sum it up, the Meroitic suffix derives from *\*gu,* whereas the Ama and Nubian suffixes derive from *\*(i-)gi.* Because Ama and Nubian belong to two separate groups within the NES languages, it is plausible that *\*(i-)gi* is the Proto-NES etymon, whereas *\*gu* is a secondary protoform restricted to the eastern branch of NES (Nubian/Meroitic and Nara). +It is nevertheless unclear whether the Old Nubian and Nobiin verbal plural marker *-(i)j* (see [3.3.2](#ii32)) is a cognate of *\*gu.* The Proto-Nubian phoneme *\*ɟ* cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES, but principally derived from *\*g,* when followed or preceded by the palatal vowels *\*i* and *\*e*.[^x26] The Nubian verbal plural marker might accordingly result from a protoform *\*-ig.* Similarly, its Ama counterpart *-(ī)d̪ì* probably derived from *\*(-i)gi.* The Ama dental stops *t̪* and *d̪* are the regular reflexes of Proto-NES *\*k* and *\*g* with back vowels,[^x27] but there are some instances of the same development with palatal vowels, such as *kwɔ̀dŕ* “strong” < Proto-NES *\*kugir*[^x280] or *tɛd̪i-ŋ* “under” < Proto-NES *\*tago-* “belly.”[^x28] To sum it up, the Meroitic suffix derives from *\*gu,* whereas the Ama and Nubian suffixes derive from *\*(i-)gi.* Because Ama and Nubian belong to two separate groups within the NES languages, it is plausible that *\*(i-)gi* is the Proto-NES etymon, whereas *\*gu* is a secondary protoform restricted to the eastern branch of NES (Nubian/Meroitic and Nara). -[^x26]: Ibid., pp. 303-304. +[^x26]: Ibid., pp. 303–304. [^x27]: Ibid., p. 329, n. 4. [^x28]: Ibid., p. 523, no. 190 [^x280]: Ibid., p. 456, no. 72. -Like *-(i)j* in Old Nubian and Nobiin, the verbal plural marker *-b* was once used for plurality of events or plurality of object. The name of the Napatan king Amaninatakilebte,[^42] who ruled during the second half of the 6th century BCE, does not make sense if the suffix *-b* marks the plurality of object. It would mean “Amun, give them strength,” with no clue as to who these multiple beneficiaries could be. Actually, the suffix marked the plurality of events and emphasised the repetition of the gift: “give again and again,” “give continuously,” or “keep giving”.[^43] +Like *-(i)j* in Old Nubian and Nobiin, the verbal plural marker *-b* was once used for plurality of events or plurality of object. The name of the Napatan king Amani-nataki-lebte,[^42] who ruled during the second half of the 6th century BCE, does not make sense if the suffix *-b* marks the plurality of object. It would mean “Amun, give them strength,” with no clue as to who these multiple beneficiaries could be. Actually, the suffix marked the plurality of events and emphasised the repetition of the gift: “give again and again,” “give continuously,” or “keep giving”.[^43] [^42]: For this ruler, see *FHN* II, pp.293–296. The name is known in Egyptian transcription only (first line of (38)), since the Meroitic script was invented only three centuries later. -[^43]: In the inscriptions of the temple of Apedemak in Naga, the verbal form *lbxte* “give them” is attested in REM 0003, where the beneficiary is the sole queen and in REM 0004, where it is the king alone. In her publication of these texts, Karola Zibelius (*Die Löwentempel van Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan) IV,* pp. 45-52) explains this plural form as an iterative. However, at this time (mid-1st c. CE), the verbal plural suffix *-bx* was already specialized to exclusively mark the object plurality. It never occurs in benedictions involving a single person, where only *lxte* is used at least since the 2nd c. BCE (REM 1044A, REM 1151). The plural marker in REM 0003 and 0004 refers to the three members of the royal family, who constitute an indissoluble trinity, even when the queen and the king are figured alone (cf. ex. 31 above). +[^43]: In the inscriptions of the temple of Apedemak in Naga, the verbal form *lbxte* “give them” is attested in REM 0003, where the beneficiary is the sole queen and in REM 0004, where it is the king alone. In her publication of these texts, Karola Zibelius (*Die Löwentempel van Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan). IV,* pp. 45–52) explains this plural form as an iterative. However, at this time (mid-1st c. CE), the verbal plural suffix *-bx* was already specialized to exclusively mark the object plurality. It never occurs in benedictions involving a single person, where only *lxte* is used at least since the 2nd c. BCE (REM 1044A, REM 1151). The plural marker in REM 0003 and 0004 refers to the three members of the royal family, who constitute an indissoluble trinity, even when the queen and the king are figured alone (cf. ex. 31 above). {{< gloss "(38)" >}} @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ Once it was considered to be a pronominal marker, *-b* was inflected by the obje {{< gloss "(40)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** -{g} *atepoke :*,offering(?)|*dot-l*-***xe***,large(?)-[det-obj1]({sc})|*pisi-tk-bxe-kese* (← *-kete-se*),[caus]({sc})-offer-[3pl.o-opt.2pl.impp]({sc})| +{g} *atepoke :*,offering(?)|*dot-l*-***xe***,large(?)-[det-obj1]({sc})|*pisi-tk-bxe-kese* (< *-kete-se*),[caus]({sc})-offer-[vnm.pl-opt.2pl.impp]({sc})| {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present them with a large(?) offering(?)" (REM 1063) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -534,16 +534,16 @@ Once it was considered to be a pronominal marker, *-b* was inflected by the obje {r} “May you [pl]({sc}) serve him a good meal” (REM 0059) {{< /gloss >}} -The difference between the two suffixes is unclear. The previous examples are drawn from benediction formulae used at the end of the funerary texts, formula J in (40) and formula C’ in (41).[^45] They can co-occur in the same text.[^46] The Proto-NES ending for the objective case can be reconstructed as *\*-gV,*[^47] which is preserved in Nubian and vestigially in Nara. In the Taman language group and in Ama, the vowel *V* was dropped and the final *\*-g* became *-ŋ.* We have seen in [3](#i) that the value of the grapheme *-x* in local words was most likely /ŋ/. The following *e* probably had a zero value, so that *-xe* was simply a final /ŋ/ like the Taman and Ama marker. +The difference between the two suffixes is unclear. The previous examples are drawn from benediction formulae used at the end of the funerary texts, formula J in (40) and formula C’ in (41).[^45] They can co-occur in the same text.[^46] The Proto-NES ending for the objective case can be reconstructed as *\*-gV,*[^47] which is preserved in Nubian and vestigially in Nara. In the Taman language group and in Ama, the vowel *V* was dropped and the final *\*-g* became *-ŋ.* We have seen in [2](#i) that the value of the grapheme *-x* in local words was most likely /ŋ/. The following *e* probably had a zero value, so that *-xe* was simply a final /ŋ/ like the Taman and Ama marker. -[^45]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 171-172 (formula C’) and pp. 176-177 (formula J). +[^45]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 171–172 (formula C’) and pp. 176–177 (formula J). [^46]: The two suffixes are therefore used at the same period, but a dialectal difference is possible, since the Meroitic scribes had a marked taste for variety and commonly used dialectal variants in the same text (cf. Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 42). -[^47]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 390-395. +[^47]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 390–395. This “objective case” in Nubian and in Tama undergoes some restrictions governed by economy principles. In his analysis of Tama, Dimmendaal speaks of “differential object marking.”[^48] In Meroitic, the objective case has become so rarely marked that the absence of case ending was more a rule than an exception. Example (41) is the benediction formula C’. It is the royal and princely counterpart of formula C which is used for private people. The only difference was the presence of the objective case-ending in C’, whereas it was missing in the C formula.[^x30] It probably gave the royal benediction a more formal wording, worthy of the lofty position of the deceased. [^x30]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 394. -[^48]: Dimmendaal, "Tama,” pp. 323-328 after Bossong, “Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond.” +[^48]: Dimmendaal, "Tama,” pp. 323–328 after Bossong, “Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond.” Similarly, the objective case ending may be omitted, as can be seen in the second of two consecutive sentences from King Taneyidamani’s stela. In (43), the expected verbal compound, parallel to the singular form *ekedeto* in (42), should be *ekedbxto.* However, maybe because of the presence of the object pronoun *qoleb,* the objective case ending *-x* is absent. @@ -554,31 +554,31 @@ Similarly, the objective case ending may be omitted, as can be seen in the secon {{< gloss "(43)" >}} {g} *qoleb :*,[3pl]({sc})|*axro*,?|*tewideb-wit*,?|*e-ked-b-to*,[1sg.s]({sc})-kill-[vnm-tam]({sc})| -{r} “I killed them, ???” (REM 1044/148-150) +{r} “I killed them, ???” (REM 1044/148–150) {{< /gloss >}} -In conclusion, the suffixes *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* operate in the verbal compound as an enclitic object pronoun. It originally consisted of a verbal plural marker *-b,* similar to its counterparts in Nubian and Ama. Between the 6th and the 2nd century BCE, this suffix underwent a transcategorization and became an enclitic object pronoun inflected with the objective case ending *-x(e).* In parallel, a 3rd person singular counter­part, *-x(e),* without the plural marker *-b,* was created. +In conclusion, the suffixes *-x(e)* and *-bx(e)* operate in the verbal compound as enclitic object pronouns. It originally consisted of a verbal plural marker *-b,* similar to its counterparts in Nubian and Ama. Between the 6th and the 2nd century BCE, this suffix underwent a transcategorization and became an enclitic object pronoun inflected with the objective case ending *-x(e).* In parallel, a singular counter­part, *-x(e),* without the plural marker *-b,* was created. However, they cannot be termed “personal pronouns” unless different forms for the 1st and the 2nd persons are identified, so as to constitute a full paradigm. Considering the formation of this morpheme, it is altogether unlikely that it also marked person. # The First Person Singular Marker {#iii} If the wording of the Meroitic inscriptions was identical to the Egyptian texts of the same genre, we should expect to find first person singular markers in the captions accompanying the divine figures in the temples and in the royal chronicles. However, the Meroitic culture, though deeply influenced by the Egyptian civilisation, still preserved many of its own peculiarities. The gods, for instance, never speak for themselves in religious texts. In an Egyptian or a Napatan temple, the caption inscribed beside an image of Amun would begin with the sentence: “Utterance of Amun. I have given all life and all power to you.”[^49] In the Meroitic texts of the temples of Naga, Meroe, Amara, and others, the god is not speaking himself. Rather, a fictive enunciator is inviting him to shower his blessings upon the ruler and his family: “O Amun! May you give X life and strength,” as shown in (17)–(18) and (29)–(31). For that reason, no first person marker can be expected in these inscriptions. -[^49]: See for instance the speech of Amun-Re in Anlamani’s stela from Kawa (*FHN* I: 217-218). +[^49]: See for instance the speech of Amun-Re in Anlamani’s stela from Kawa (*FHN* I: pp. 217–218). ## Person in Egyptian Royal Texts {#iii1} -The Egyptian royal chronicles, the so-called *Königsnovellen,*[^50] alternatively use the first person pronoun and the phrase *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to designate the king – the hero of the narrative. This is for instance the case in the famous poem of Kadesh, where passages in the first person and the third person freely intertwine to describe the battle that Ramesses II fought against the Hittites. In Kush, the earliest and the most sophisticated *Königsnovelle* is the Victory Stela of King Piankhy (*FHN* I: 62-118), engraved around 720 BCE and erected in the dynastic temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal. Apart from the passages including the king’s speech, which are in the first person, the narrative uses *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to refer to Piankhy. The same usage is found in the stelae erected in the temple of Kawa by king Taharqo and, later, in the inscriptions of the early Napatan kings Anlamani and Aspelta.[^51] +The Egyptian royal chronicles, the so-called *Königsnovellen,*[^50] alternatively use the first person pronoun and the phrase *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to designate the king – the hero of the narrative. This is for instance the case in the famous poem of Kadesh, where passages in the first person and the third person freely intertwine to describe the battle that Ramesses II fought against the Hittites. In Kush, the earliest and the most sophisticated *Königsnovelle* is the Victory Stela of King Piankhy (*FHN* I: pp. 62–118), engraved around 720 BCE and erected in the dynastic temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal. Apart from the passages including the king’s speech, which are in the first person, the narrative uses *ḥm=f* “his Majesty” to refer to Piankhy. The same usage is found in the stelae erected in the temple of Kawa by king Taharqo and, later, in the inscriptions of the early Napatan kings Anlamani and Aspelta.[^51] [^50]: See Loprieno, "The King's Novel" and Spalinger, “Königsnovelle and Performance.” For an annotated edition of the poem of Kadesh, see Kitchen, *Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II.* -[^51]: Taharqo’s stelae, Kawa IV: *ḥm=f* with a long speech of the king in the 1st person (*FHN* I: 135-145), Kawa V: *ḥm=f,* with a long narrative told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: 145-158), Kawa VI: *ḥm=f,* with a long speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: 164-176), Kawa VII: *ḥm=f,* with a speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: 176-181); Anlamani’s stela, Kawa VIII: *ḥm=f,* but the raid against the Blemmyes uses the 3rd person plural ("soldiers") because the king stayed in Napata (*FHN* I: 216-228); Aspelta’s stelae from Jebel Barkal, Election stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: 232-252), Banishment stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: 252-258), Adoption stela (king hardly mentioned): *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: 259-268), stela for the mortuary cult of Prince Khaliut: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: 268-279). +[^51]: Taharqo’s stelae, Kawa IV: *ḥm=f* with a long speech of the king in the 1st person (*FHN* I: pp. 135–145), Kawa V: *ḥm=f,* with a long narrative told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 145–158), Kawa VI: *ḥm=f,* with a long speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 164–176), Kawa VII: *ḥm=f,* with a speech told by the king in the second half of the text (*FHN* I: pp. 176–181); Anlamani’s stela, Kawa VIII: *ḥm=f,* but the raid against the Blemmyes uses the 3rd person plural ("soldiers") because the king stayed in Napata (*FHN* I: pp. 216–228); Aspelta’s stelae from Jebel Barkal, Election stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 232–252), Banishment stela: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 252–258), Adoption stela (king hardly mentioned): *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 259–268), stela for the mortuary cult of Prince Khaliut: *ḥm=f* (*FHN* I: pp. 268–279). -In the mid-5th c. BCE, a dramatic shift occurred. The inscriptions of the late Napatan king Amannote-erike (*FHN* II: 400-428) still use the time-honored phrase *ḥm=f,* but the two subsequent royal stelae, erected in the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal by kings Harsiotef (*FHN* II: 438-464) and Nastasen (*FHN* II: 471-501), are written in the first person, even in the reports of military campaigns in which the ruler did not take part in person. This shift was not an isolated novelty, but took place among several divergences from the Egyptian/Early Napatan pattern. In Nastasen’s inscription, for example, the time scale by regnal years is replaced by vague adverbial phrases such as *kt ꜥn* “another matter again” in the war reports.[^52] This chronological vagueness was to become systematic in the royal stelae written in Meroitic, where no regnal year is ever mentioned. The reasons for these changes are unclear but the influence of local oral traditions may have played a role. +In the mid-5th c. BCE, a dramatic shift occurred. The inscriptions of the late Napatan king Amannote-erike (*FHN* II: pp. 400–428) still use the time-honored phrase *ḥm=f,* but the two subsequent royal stelae, erected in the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal by kings Harsiotef (*FHN* II: pp. 438–464) and Nastasen (*FHN* II: pp. 471–501), are written in the first person, even in the reports of military campaigns in which the ruler did not take part in person. This shift was not an isolated novelty, but took place among several divergences from the Egyptian/Early Napatan pattern. In Nastasen’s inscription, for example, the time scale by regnal years is replaced by vague adverbial phrases such as *kt ꜥn* “another matter again” in the war reports.[^52] This chronological vagueness was to become systematic in the royal stelae written in Meroitic, where no regnal year is ever mentioned. The reasons for these changes are unclear but the influence of local oral epics may have played a role. -[^52]: Cf. *FHN* II: 487 (l. 46), 488 (l. 50), 489 (l. 52), 490 (l. 54, 56), 491 (l. 60), 492 (l. 64). +[^52]: Cf. *FHN* II: p. 487 (l. 46), p. 488 (l. 50), p. 489 (l. 52), p. 490 (l. 54, 56), p. 491 (l. 60), p. 492 (l. 64). In Harsiotef’s stela, after the titles and the eulogy, where the king is referred to in the third person, the text abruptly shifts to the first person, without any kind of transition (*FHN* II: 441, l. 4). In Nastasen’s stela, the main text similarly begins with the titles of the king and a long eulogy, after which the narrative is introduced by the clause *dd=f* “he says,” referring, of course, to the king. This addition, lacking in Harsiotef’s stela, makes clear that, from this point on, the narrator is the ruler.[^53] The following passage from Nastasen’s chronicle (ll. 54–56) illustrates this novel use of the first person in Napatan war reports.[^54] Conspicuously, the monarch is not acting in person, but through his warriors, hence the use of the factitive verb *dj* “make, cause to.” -[^53]: *FHN* II: 475 (l. 4). This infringement of the Egyptian tradition puzzled the editor of the text, who appropriately translated “he says,” but erroneously corrected in n. 151: “For ‘I say’.” +[^53]: *FHN* II: p. 475 (l. 4). This infringement of the Egyptian tradition puzzled the editor of the text, who appropriately translated “he says,” but erroneously corrected in n. 151: “For ‘I say’.” {{< gloss "(44)" >}} {r} **Egyptian** @@ -589,31 +589,31 @@ In Harsiotef’s stela, after the titles and the eulogy, where the king is refer {r}*dj=j ḫꜣy ꜥꜣ* {r}I caused a great bloodbath. {r}*dj=j ṯꜣ pꜣ wr pꜣ nty jw=f r s.ꜥnḫ jr.t n-jm=f nb ḥmt nb.t* -{r}I had the chief seized, (together with) all that on which he would feed, and all the women. +{r}I had the chief seized, (together with) all that on which he [= they] would feed, and all the women. {r}*dj=j* <*s*>*w ẖr=j x*[*ꜥ*]*q jwꜣ 203,146 mnmn 33,050* {r}I put in my possession a booty (of) 203,146 oxen and 33,050 head of livestock.” {{< /gloss >}} [^54]: Reading and translation by the author. See *FHN* II: 490 and Peust, *Das Napatanische,* pp. 42, 60, 64. -The first preserved royal text in Meroitic, namely the great stela of king Taneyidamani from the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal, was inscribed a century and a half later. In the meantime, the donation stelae of king Aryamani, Kawa XIV and XV, are admittedly written in the first person, but the texts – at least what is left of them – are speeches to Amun and contain no narrative.[^55] On the other end of the Meroitic period, a century after the fall of Meroe, the wall inscription of the Nobadian ruler Silko in Kalabsha, though written in Greek, also is in the first person.[^56] It is therefore highly probable that the Meroitic royal chronicles fall in this long-lasting tradition and include events and war reports narrated by the ruler in the first person, like the late Napatan royal stelae and the post-Meroitic inscription of king Silko. +The first preserved royal text in Meroitic, namely the great stela of king Taneyidamani from the temple of Amun in Jebel Barkal, was inscribed a century and a half later. In the meantime, the Egyptian-language donation stelae of king Aryamani, Kawa XIV and XV, are admittedly written in the first person, but the texts – at least what is left of them – are speeches to Amun and contain no narrative.[^55] On the other end of the Meroitic period, a century after the fall of Meroe, the wall inscription of the Nobadian ruler Silko in Kalabsha, though written in Greek, also is in the first person.[^56] It is therefore highly probable that the Meroitic royal chronicles fall in this long-lasting tradition and include events and war reports narrated by the ruler in the first person, like the late Napatan royal stelae and the post-Meroitic inscription of king Silko. -[^55]: See *FHN* II: 522-532. The stelae, which are in very bad state of preservation, are dated to the late 4th or the early 3rd c. -[^56]: *FHN* III: 1147-1153; Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 385-388. +[^55]: See *FHN* II: pp. 522–532. The stelae, which are in very bad state of preservation, are dated to the late 4th or the early 3rd c. +[^56]: *FHN* III: pp. 1147–1153; Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 385–388. ## The Verbal Affix *(y)e-* in Meroitic Royal Texts {#iii2} -Although the major part of the Meroitic royal inscriptions remains untranslatable, the passages that enumerate the spoils of war are now fairly well understood.[^57] They include, on the one hand, verbs such as *ked* “kill,” are and *er* “take hold of,” *tk* “seize,” *kb* “seize, plunder,” sometimes followed by the pluractional marker *-k* (*er-k, tk-k*), and, on the other hand, nouns such as *abr* “man,” *kdi* “woman,” *ar* “boy,” *anese* “donkey,” *mreke* “horse,” and *d* “house,”[^58] all of them being parts of the booty and therefore, cited with figures or more summarily followed by *-se-l* “each.” Examples (20), (35), (36), (37), (42), and (43) above are instances of booty lists from royal inscriptions. +Although the major part of the Meroitic royal inscriptions remains untranslatable, the passages that enumerate the spoils of war are now fairly well understood.[^57] They include, on the one hand, verbs such as *ked* “kill,” *are* and *er* “take hold of,” *tk* “seize,” *kb* “seize, plunder,” sometimes followed by the pluractional marker *-k* (*er-k, tk-k*), and, on the other hand, nouns such as *abr* “man,” *kdi* “woman,” *ar* “boy,” *anese* “donkey,” *mreke* “horse,” and *d* “house,”[^58] all of them being parts of the booty and therefore, cited with figures or more summarily followed by *-se-l* “each.” Examples (20), (35), (36), (37), (42), and (43) above are instances of booty lists from royal inscriptions. -[^57]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 74-80. +[^57]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 74–80. [^58]: The word appears in REM 1003/14 and in graffito MS 57 from Musawwarat. Its translation is inferred from the context of these two occurrences and from the comparison with Andaandi *daa* “residence” and Nara *dà* “village.” See Rilly, “Graffiti for Gods and Kings.” In his publication of the so-called Akinidad’s stela from Hamadab (REM 1003), Griffith was the first to deal with these passages. Thanks to his then recent translation of *kdi* “woman” and *abr* “man,” he correctly identified the first two clauses (*abrsel yekedi: kdisel: arseli: tkk*) as the outcome of military campaigns and tentatively translated them as “slaying men, enslaving women.”[^59] By using participles, he eluded the thorny issue of the subject of the verbs. After Griffith, few scholars addressed this particular question. In her analysis of the same passages, Inge Hofmann dealt with the meaning of the verb *ked,* but ignored the problem of its subject.[^60] As for Millet, in a first study of Kharamadoye’s royal inscription REM 0094, he suggested that *ked* was a noun meaning “slayer.”[^x31] Later, in a revised analysis of the same article, he assumed that *ked* was a verb in the third person singular,[^x32] but did not explain how this third person was morphologically expressed. [^x31]: Millet, “The Kharamadoye Inscription,” p. 38. -[^x32]: Millet, “The Kharamadoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” p. 67 +[^x32]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” p. 67 [^59]: Griffith, “Meroitic Studies IV,” p. 167. Note that Griffith mistook the noun phrase *ar-se-li* “all the boys” for the verbal form he translated “enslaving,” which verb was actually *tkk.* -[^60]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 294-297. For a critical review of her translation of *ked,* see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 76-78. +[^60]: Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 294–297. For a critical review of her translation of *ked,* see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 76–78. It is necessary first to summarize the different forms that the verbs “kill” and “seize” (*vel sim.*) can take in different royal, princely, and viceregal inscriptions. **Table 2** includes a list of these forms with reference to the texts which are quoted in chronological order: @@ -627,20 +627,20 @@ Note that only the passages where at least the verb *ked* is present are taken i | Text | Lines | Example | "kill" | "seize" (*vel sim.*) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| REM 1044 | 5 | | e-ked | erk (← e- + er-k) | -| | 130–131 | | e-ked-td | er-td (← e- + er-td) | +| REM 1044 | 5 | | e-ked | erk (< e- + er-k) | +| | 130–131 | | e-ked-td | er-td (< e- + er-td) | | | 143 | (42) | e-kede-to | | | | 144 | | e-kede-to | | | | 149–151 | (43) | e-kede-b-to | | | REM 0092 | 6–8 | | kede-to | are-de-to | | | 12–14 | | kede-to | are-de-to | -| REM 1003 | 4–5 | (35) | ye-ked-i | tk-k; yerki (← ye- + er-k-i) | -| | 9 | | ye-ked-i | erk (← e- + er-k) | +| REM 1003 | 4–5 | (35) | ye-ked-i | tk-k; yerki (< ye- + er-k-i) | +| | 9 | | ye-ked-i | erk (< e- + er-k) | | | 11 | (36) | ye-ked | tk-k | | | 14 | | ye-ked | tk-k | | REM 1333 | 6 | | ye-ked | | | | 13 | | ked | | -| | 14 | | ked | kbxelo (← kb-bxe-l-o) | +| | 14 | | ked | kbxelo (< kb-bxe-l-o) | | | 16–17 | (20) | ked | arohe-bx; tk-bxe-l-o | | | 18 | | ye-ked | | | | 20 | | ked | | @@ -650,13 +650,13 @@ Note that only the passages where at least the verb *ked* is present are taken i **~~Table 2. Forms of the verbs "kill" and "seize" (*vel. sim*) in REM 1044, 0092, 1003, 1333, and 0094.~~** -The verbal forms listed above show a great diversity of suffixes. The plural verbal marker *-bx(e)* in REM 1333, variant *-b* in REM 1044/149-150 and 0094, and the pluractional suffix *-k* in REM 1044/5 and 1003, which were studied both in [3.3.6](#ii36), are irrelevant in the quest for personal markers. The suffixes *-td* (only in REM 1044), *-to* in REM 1044 and 0092, *-te* in REM 0094 are probably tense or aspect markers, which are in final position in all the other NES languages.[^61] The morpheme *-i* in REM 1003 is obviously optional, as it can be present or absent in identical sequences such as *abr-se-l: ye-ked-i* “I killed each man” in l. 4 vs. *abr-se-l ye-ked* in l. 11.[^62] The vocalic sign *-e* appended to the stem in *(e)-kede-to* (REM 1044 and 0092) is probably an epenthetic vowel inserted before the suffix *-to.* In the other verbal forms ending with this suffix that occur in the same texts, the vowel *-e* is generally absent, but no obvious rule, as for now, can predict its appearance. Finally, the forms ending with *-l-o* in REM 1333 are very probably periphrastic, as they include participles followed by the article *-l* and the copula *-o.* The multiplicity of tense or aspect markers that occur in these narrative texts is by no means unexpected or dubious, but is a further aspect of the *varietas* that is so peculiar to the Meroitic texts, when compared with their formulaic Egyptian counterparts.[^63] A similar variety in narrative tenses can be found in many languages. In French, for example, historical records can of course use simple past and imperfect, but present is possible (*présent de narration*) and even future, in this case referring to past events (*futur historique*). +The verbal forms listed above show a great diversity of suffixes. The plural verbal marker *-bx(e)* in REM 1333, variant *-b* in REM 1044/149–150 and 0094, and the pluractional suffix *-k* in REM 1044/5 and 1003, which were studied both in [3.3.6](#ii36), are irrelevant in the quest for personal markers. The suffixes *-td* (only in REM 1044), *-to* in REM 1044 and 0092, *-te* in REM 0094 are probably tense or aspect markers, which are in final position in all the other NES languages.[^61] The morpheme *-i* in REM 1003 is obviously optional, as it can be present or absent in identical sequences such as *abr-se-l: ye-ked-i* “I killed each man” in l. 4 vs. *abr-se-l ye-ked* in l. 11.[^62] The vocalic sign *-e* appended to the stem in *(e)-kede-to* (REM 1044 and 0092) is probably an epenthetic vowel inserted before the suffix *-to.* In the other verbal forms ending with this suffix that occur in the same texts, the vowel *-e* is generally absent, but no obvious rule, as for now, can predict its appearance. Finally, the forms ending with *-l-o* in REM 1333 are very probably periphrastic, as they include participles followed by the article *-l* and the copula *-o.* The multiplicity of tense or aspect markers that occur in these narrative texts is by no means unexpected or dubious, but is a further aspect of the *varietas* that is so peculiar to the Meroitic texts, when compared with their formulaic Egyptian counterparts.[^63] A similar variety in narrative tenses can be found in many languages. In French, for example, historical records can of course use simple past and imperfect, but present is possible (*présent de narration*) and even future, in this case referring to past events (*futur historique*). -[^61]: Wolfgang Schenkel, in his analysis of the verbal affixes in the Meroitic royal text ("Meroitisches und Barya-Verb"), assumes that *-td* is a durative suffix, which he compares with the durative ending *-ter/-der* in Nara. Note that this suffix is attested only in Reinisch’s description of the language, which used second-hand material and is not entirely reliable (Reinisch, *Die Barea-Sprache,* 57). Schenkel suggests that the suffix *-to* includes an aorist marker *-t* followed by a 1st person singular *-o,* with similar comparisons with Nara. For a critical review of his hypotheses, see Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* 214-216. Note that the suffix *-te* in REM 0094 (also frequent with other verbs in REM 1003) is not identical with the 2nd person plural suffix of the optative, which is also written *-te* (see [5.2](#iv2) below). -[^62]: This morpheme may be the same as the particle *-wi* that is added *ad libitum* to the singular copula *-o* (cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 186). The consonant *w-* could be either an epenthetic glide inserted between *o* (pronounced /u/) and *i,* or a dummy sign used to write the hiatus /u/ + /i/ according to the rules of the alphasyllabic Meroitic writing system (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 294-295). +[^61]: Wolfgang Schenkel, in his analysis of the verbal affixes in the Meroitic royal text ("Meroitisches und Barya-Verb"), assumes that *-td* is a durative suffix, which he compares with the durative ending *-ter/-der* in Nara. Note that this suffix is attested only in Reinisch’s description of the language, which used second-hand material and is not entirely reliable (Reinisch, *Die Barea-Sprache,* p. 57). Schenkel suggests that the suffix *-to* includes an aorist marker *-t* followed by a 1st person singular *-o,* with similar comparisons with Nara. For a critical review of his hypotheses, see Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 214–216. Note that the suffix *-te* in REM 0094 (also frequent with other verbs in REM 1003) is not identical with the 2nd person plural suffix of the optative, which is also written *-te* (see [5.2](#iv2) below). +[^62]: This morpheme may be the same as the particle *-wi* that is added *ad libitum* to the singular copula *-o* (cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 186). The consonant *w-* could be either an epenthetic glide inserted between *o* (pronounced /u/) and *i,* or a dummy sign used to write the hiatus /u/ + /i/ according to the rules of the alphasyllabic Meroitic writing system (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 294–295). [^63]: This is particularly true for the funerary texts. See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 202, 565. -Coming back to **Table 2**, the only marker that can actually refer to the person is the prefix *(y)e-,* since it has no alternative, unlike the diverse suffixes that are listed above. As explained in [3](#i), the form *ye-* is just a later spelling of *e-.* Both were similarly pronounced /e/. In early inscriptions such as Taneyidamani’s stela (REM 1044), the prefix is spelled *e-* everywhere. In classical Meroitic texts such as Akinidad’s stela (REM 1003), *e-* (in *erk*) and *ye-* (in *yerki*) are alternately used for the same verb. Finally, in the late stela of viceroy Abratoye (REM 1333), the only spelling is *ye-.* One may wonder why this personal marker was not identified earlier. Actually, there were two difficulties. First, the prefix is missing in several clauses in REM 1003 and is completely absent in REM 0092 and 0094; second, a prefix *ye-* is attested in the final benedictions of the funerary texts, in a context where only the 2nd person plural is expected. +Coming back to **Table 2**, the only marker that can actually refer to the person is the prefix *(y)e-,* since it has no alternative, unlike the diverse suffixes that are listed above. As explained in [2](#i), the form *ye-* is just a later spelling of *e-.* Both were similarly pronounced /e/. In early inscriptions such as Taneyidamani’s stela (REM 1044), the prefix is spelled *e-* everywhere. In classical Meroitic texts such as Akinidad’s stela (REM 1003), *e-* (in *erk*) and *ye-* (in *yerki*) are alternately used for the same verb. Finally, in the late stela of viceroy Abratoye (REM 1333), the only spelling is *ye-.* One may wonder why this personal marker was not identified earlier. Actually, there were two difficulties. First, the prefix is missing in several clauses in REM 1003 and is completely absent in REM 0092 and 0094; second, a prefix *ye-* is attested in the final benedictions of the funerary texts, in a context where only the 2nd person plural is expected. ## The Distribution of the Prefix *(y)e-* and Homonymy {#iii3} @@ -664,19 +664,19 @@ The first difficulty can be easily resolved. Once again, this issue is connected How can we account for these variations in the distribution of the prefix *(y)e-* in the royal and princely inscriptions? In the early stela REM 1044, the prefix is systematically present on all the verbal forms. In REM 1003, a century and a half later, the prefix is used with the first verbal form (“kill”) but is omitted in the following clause (“take”) for reasons of economy, since the subject is the same as in the previous clause. In the late stela REM 1333, the first occurrence of the verb *ked* includes the prefix *ye-,* but the next three occurrences of the same verb are again subject to ellipsis, as are all the verbs of the second clauses (“take” *vel sim.*). In l. 18, the personal prefix is resumed, as a reminder for the two last occurrences of *ked,* where it is omitted again. In the very late inscription of the post-Meroitic kinglet Kharamadoye, the prefix is totally missing in the forms meaning “kill” or “take”. However, a previous sequence in l. 8, *yetolxe,* could be a verbal form with prefix *ye-.*[^64] Finally, the inscription REM 0092, though written at the same time as REM 1003, shows no prefix in the verbal forms for “kill” and “take.” However, in a previous passage in l. 5, the verb is illegible because the stone is damaged in this place. This lacuna possibly contained the prefix *e-,* whose lower stroke seems partly visible on some photographs taken prior to the relocation of the temple of Dakka when the Aswan dam was built. -[^64]: Millet, “The Kharamadoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” pp. 62, 70, considered this sequence a noun group *yeto-l-xe* “on (?) the river.” The variant *yeto* for *ato* “water” is, however, attested only in REM 0307. +[^64]: Millet, “The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited,” pp. 62, 70, considered this sequence a noun group *yeto-l-xe* “on (?) the river.” The variant *yeto* for *ato* “water” is, however, attested only in REM 0307. -It seems that, in the course of time, the personal marker *(y)e-* shifted from compulsory verbal affix to quasi-independent subject pronoun. On the one hand, it could be present or absent if implicit, just like personal pronouns in English. On the other hand, it was never separated from the verb by an intermediary element such as an object noun group or an adverbial phrase. Its close connection with the following verbal form is also showed by the total absence of a word-divider *:* between them in all the texts. In addition, ellipsis was likely more frequent in everyday speech than in the literary inscription. This could explain the difference in the use of the prefix between the contemporaneous texts REM 0092 and 1003: REM 0092 is a simple graffito carelessly engraved in the temple of Dakka during the visit of prince Akinidad, whereas REM 1003 was an official stela erected at the entrance of the temple of Amun in Hamadab. +It seems that, in the course of time, the personal marker *(y)e-* shifted from compulsory verbal affix to quasi-independent subject pronoun. On the one hand, it could be present or absent if implicit, just like personal pronouns in English *he came and saw*. On the other hand, it was never separated from the verb by an intermediary element such as an object noun group or an adverbial phrase. Its close connection with the following verbal form is also showed by the total absence of a word-divider (*:*) between them in all the texts. In addition, ellipsis was likely more frequent in everyday speech than in the literary inscription. This could explain the difference in the use of the prefix between the contemporaneous texts REM 0092 and 1003: REM 0092 is a simple graffito carelessly engraved in the temple of Dakka during the visit of prince Akinidad, whereas REM 1003 was an official stela erected at the entrance of the temple of Amun in Hamadab. The second difficulty is that a homonymous prefix *ye-* is attested in verbal compounds of the funerary benedictions, which are clearly in the 2nd person plural since these passages are prayers to Isis and Osiris. This rare alternative prefix can replace the element *p(V)s(V)-* that is generally found at the beginning of the complex verbal forms of the benedictions A and B.[^65] It is altogether the most frequent in the rare benediction D.[^66] The suffixes of the verbal compounds of the benedictions are now relatively well understood (see [5.1](#iv1)), though their prefixes still remain puzzling. Both *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* can best be interpreted as causative markers, as they always appear before the verbal stems meaning “drink” (*he* in benediction A) and “eat” (*xr* in benediction B), but are optional before the verb “offer, present” (*hol* in benediction C). The deities invoked in the funerary texts would be invited to “make” the deceased “drink” and “eat,” but they could either “present them with a good meal” or “have them presented with a good meal.” Prefixes are extremely rare in NES languages and only the Taman group has verbal prefixes, used exclusively for marking the person (a point to which we return below). -[^65]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 559-567. It accounts for 2% of the verbal forms used in the benedictions funerary texts according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. -[^66]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 172-174. Only 20 occurrences are known so far. +[^65]: See Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 559–567. It accounts for 2% of the verbal forms used in the benedictions funerary texts according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. +[^66]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 172–174. Only 20 occurrences are known so far. The most plausible solution would be to regard *ye-* and *p(V)s(V)-* as causative verbs, such as “make” or “have” in English. In the case of *p(V)s(V)-,* a possible cognate could be Old Nubian ⲡⲉⲥ- “tell, speak, say.” The gods of the underworld could in this case could be invited, literally, to “tell” that the deceased eat and drink, that is, to make them eat and drink. As for the alternative verb *ye-* in these passages, it could be linked with Old Nubian ⲉⲓ- and Nobiin *ií-* “say,” especially because *ye-* has a variant *yi-* which is three times more frequent in funerary texts.[^67] This solution may be semantically acceptable, but it faces a major obstacle: Meroitic, like all the NES languages, is a head-final language, in which the verb is placed at the end of sentences and the auxiliary is expected to occur after the verb. In addition, the absence of TAM markers after *p(V)s(V)-,* and *ye-/yi-* points to a serial verb construction, where only the last verb is inflected for TAM. However, this is cross-linguistically attested only for consecutive verbs that share a common subject.[^68] For all these reasons, the verbal compound of the funerary benedictions requires further study. Nevertheless, the element *ye-* in these benedictions has nothing to do with the prefix *ye-* we found in the royal texts. It is just a further instance of the many homonymous morphemes that are attested in Meroitic. -[^67]: The frequency of *yi-* is 6,2% according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. For Nobiin *ií-*, more commonly used with a causative suffix in the compound *ií-gìr,* see Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 356. Note that “say” is frequently used as a light verb (but not as a causative auxiliary) in the languages of Sudan, regardless of the linguistic family. For Andaandi, see El-Guzuuli, "The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi"; for Ama, see Stevenson *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 147 (my copy of the manuscript, an annotated version transmitted by Roger Blench, has the light verb *she* on pp. 146–146a and 147. Page 146a is handwritten and the page numbers on p. 147 and 148 have been corrected manually) and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 210; for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* 146-14. -[^68]: See Haspelmath, "The Serial Verb Construction,” esp. pp. 409-411 (with possible exception in ex. 31, where two different subjects are found). +[^67]: The frequency of *yi-* is 6,2% according to Schenkel, “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte,” p. 8. For Nobiin *ií-*, more commonly used with a causative suffix in the compound *ií-gìr,* see Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 356. Note that “say” is frequently used as a light verb (but not as a causative auxiliary) in the languages of Sudan, regardless of the linguistic family. For Andaandi, see El-Guzuuli, "The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi"; for Ama, see Stevenson *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* p. 147 (my copy of the manuscript, an annotated version transmitted by Roger Blench, has the light verb *she* on pp. 146–146a and 147. Page 146a is handwritten and the page numbers on p. 147 and 148 have been corrected manually) and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 210; for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* pp. 146–147. +[^68]: See Haspelmath, "The Serial Verb Construction,” esp. pp. 409–411 (with possible exception in ex. 31, where two different subjects are found). Finally, another element *ye-* is attested in several kinship noun phrases, also in funerary inscriptions. The “filiation” part of these texts specifies the mother and father of the deceased, who is said to be “the person born of X” and “the person begotten by Y.” In the major part of the inscriptions, these two compounds are *te-dxe-l* (or *t-dxe-l*) and *t-erike-l.* They include a prefixed element *t(e)-,* the participles *dxe* “born” and *erike* “begotten,” and the final article, which has a nominalizing role. Several texts include a variant with a first element *y(e)-,* namely *ye-dxe-l* and *y-erike-l.* The forms including *y(e)-* and *t(e)-* can even be found together in the same inscription, giving a further example of the aforementioned *varietas* sought by Meroitic scribes. Another kinship term, *yetmde* “younger in the maternal line, i.e., nephew/niece,” may provide the key to the element *ye-* in filiation clauses. It includes the word *mde* which refers to the mother’s family in this matrilineal society. The first element is *yet-* (pronounced /eta/ or /eda/), but has many variants: *yete, yed, yen* (with assimilation before ­*mde*). The elements *te-* and *ye-* in filiation are probably two eroded forms of *yet-,* which can be compared with Proto-Nubian *\*id,* Proto-Taman *\*at* “person,” and Nara *eítá* “body.”[^x33]. “The person born” and “the person begotten” are therefore accurate translations of *ye-dxe* and *y-erike*. The element *ye-* in these contexts is therefore originally a noun and has nothing to do with the homonymous prefix found in royal inscriptions. @@ -684,14 +684,14 @@ Finally, another element *ye-* is attested in several kinship noun phrases, also ## Comparative Evidence from NES Languages {#iii4} -In light of the above, it seems certain, first, that the verbs in the narratives of the royal inscriptions are in the first person singular and, second, that the prefix *(y)e-* is the personal subject marker of the verbs “kill” and “take.” Consequently, *ye-ked* (archaic *e-ked*), can be translated “I killed” or “I have killed” and *yerki* (archaic *erk*) as “I took,” “I have taken,” or the like. Given the meaning of these passages, the basic tense/aspect using simple stems like *ked, tkk,* and so on, must be a perfective. Alternative tenses with suffixes also are attested, as shown in **Table 2**, but for now, it is impossible to explain them. The first person singular marker *(y)e-* is probably the Meroitic reflex of the Proto-NES pronoun *\*a(-i),*[^69] reconstructed from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i,*[^70] Nara *\*a(-ga)*,[^71] and Proto-Nyima *\*a-i.* The stem of this pronoun is *\*a,* to which a suffix *\*-i* has been appended. This ending was probably a deictic particle and can be found at the end of persons’ and gods’ names in Meroitic and in Old Nubian.[^72] The Meroitic form seems to have undergone crasis[^73] /a/ + /i/ → /e/, which is also found for this pronoun in several Ajang dialects.[^74] +In light of the above, it seems certain, first, that the verbs in the narratives of the royal inscriptions are in the first person singular and, second, that the prefix *(y)e-* is the personal subject marker of the verbs “kill” and “take.” Consequently, *ye-ked* (archaic *e-ked*), can be translated “I killed” or “I have killed” and *yerki* (archaic *erk*) as “I took,” “I have taken,” or the like. Given the meaning of these passages, the basic tense/aspect using simple stems like *ked, tkk,* and so on, must be a perfective. Alternative tenses with suffixes also are attested, as shown in **Table 2**, but for now, it is impossible to explain them. The first person singular marker *(y)e-* is probably the Meroitic reflex of the Proto-NES pronoun *\*a(-i),*[^69] reconstructed from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i,*[^70] Nara *\*a(-ga)*,[^71] and Proto-Nyima *\*a-i.* The stem of this pronoun is *\*a,* to which a suffix *\*-i* has been appended. This ending was probably a deictic particle and can be found at the end of persons’ and gods’ names in Meroitic and in Old Nubian.[^72] The Meroitic form seems to have undergone crasis[^73] /a/ + /i/ > /e/, which is also found for this pronoun in several Ajang dialects.[^74] -[^69]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 467-468, no. 92. The Proto-Taman is curiously *\*wa,* which can result from *\*o* through vowel-breaking. The Proto-NES genitive of the 1sg pronoun seems to have been *\*on* and might have triggered an analogical shift for the nominative in Proto-Taman. +[^69]: Cf. Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 467–468, no. 92. The Proto-Taman is curiously *\*wa,* which can result from *\*o* through vowel-breaking. The Proto-NES genitive of the 1sg pronoun seems to have been *\*on* and might have triggered an analogical shift for the nominative in Proto-Taman. [^70]: Reconstructed *\*ay* in Proto-Nubian according to Jakobi 2019: tab.2. The glide *y,* IPA [j], has no phonological status in Proto-Nubian according to my own research (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 269). For this reason, I am inclined to reconstruct this word as vowels in hiatus. [^71]: In the Nara group, the ancient accusative form (with regular *\*-ga* ending) of this pronoun has replaced the nominative when the distinction between both cases was lost: see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 391 and n. 471. There is no way to know if the original nominative form was also *a-i. [^72]: In Meroitic, this particle is spelled *-i* in names of gods, for example *Amn-i* “Amun” or *Atr-i* “Hathor” and *-ye* in the names of people, for example *Abrato-ye,* name of a famous viceroy of Nubia. In Old Nubian, for example, Jesus is written ⲓ̈ⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ-ⲓ. This particle may be connected to the Meroitic vocative ending *-i*: *Wos-i* “oh Isis!” [^73]: Fusion of two consecutive vowels into one. -[^74]: For instance Karko *ê* "I" (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* 42) from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i.* +[^74]: For instance Karko *ê* "I" (Jakobi, *Kordofan Nubian,* p. 42) from Proto-Nubian *\*a-i.* If the form of the Meroitic marker matches its cognates in other NES languages, its syntactic use shows a substantial difference to them. In all these languages, the subject pronoun is located at the beginning of the sentence and the verb at the end (SOV word order) as in these examples from Nobiin and Ama.[^ex46] @@ -725,29 +725,29 @@ The only NES-languages which have personal prefixes appended to the verb are the {r} “I am a Tama.” {{< /gloss >}} -This structure seems an innovation of the Taman group within the NES languages. Generally speaking, the personal affixes appended to the verb in Nara, Nubian, and Taman strongly differ from each other and cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES. It seems that the original person marking combined independent pronouns (which are clearly related in the daughter languages) and verbal plural suffixes, which have been studied above. This system still operates in the Nyima languages. The Meroitic system – at least in the passages of the royal inscriptions under examination – seems close to the Proto-NES and Nyima system, but has innovated by displacing the subject pronoun before the verb. However, the connection between this pronoun and the following verb is not as strong as it is for person markers embedded in verbal compounds. This innovation created a specific OSV word order for sentences including a subject pronoun, whereas the original SOV order was preserved in sentences with nominal subject. +This structure seems an innovation of the Taman group within the NES languages. Generally speaking, the personal affixes appended to the verb in Nara, Nubian, and Taman strongly differ from each other and cannot be reconstructed in Proto-NES. It seems that the original person marking combined independent pronouns (which are clearly related in the daughter languages) and verbal plural suffixes, which have been studied above. This system still operates in the Nyima languages. The Meroitic system – at least in the passages of the royal inscriptions under examination – seems close to the Proto-NES and Nyima system, but has innovated by displacing the subject pronoun before the verb. This innovation created a specific OSV word order for sentences including a subject pronoun, whereas the original SOV order was preserved in sentences with nominal subject. ## Another Person Marker in Meroitic Royal Texts? {#iii5} Instead of *(y)e-,* an alternative prefix *w-* appears before the verbal forms of *er-k* “take, capture,” *kb* “seize, and *bqo* “take control” within the royal texts REM 1044, 1003, and 0094. It never occurs with *ked* “kill,” as can be seen in the examples below.[^ex77] -[^ex77]: In (50), the reading of the first signs was made possible thanks to excellent photos and interpretation by Gilda Ferrandino in her doctoral thesis, *Studio dei testi reali meroitici,* p. 65 and pl. 29.1. For the archaic sign conventionally transcribed *H,* see Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* p. 353. In all likelihood, the form *kbxte* comes from *kb-bx-te* after haplography, as the object seems to be a plural and, accordingly, should marked in the verb by the suffix *bx*. +[^ex77]: In (50), the reading of the first signs was made possible thanks to excellent photos and interpretation by Gilda Ferrandino in her doctoral thesis, *Studio dei testi reali meroitici,* p. 65 and pl. 29.1. For the archaic sign conventionally transcribed *H,* see Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* p. 353. In all likelihood, the form *kbxte* comes from *kb-bx-te* after haplography, as the object seems to be a plural and, accordingly, should be marked in the verb by the suffix *bx*. In (51), the word *tdxsene* includes the noun phrase *t-dx-* meaning “child (of a mother)” but the following sequence *-se-ne* is obscure. It ultimately might be a proper name, Tadakhesene, with an ending *-ne* that is common in the Meroitic personal names. Examples (52) and (53) differ only in the spellings of *(y)emoqe* “belongings (?)”and *(e)qebese* “their’. - In (54), a direct genitive *Aqtoye mtekdi 2* “the two daughters of Aqatoye” should be expected for unalienable possession (cf. Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 525-527). However, the inscription REM 0094, engraved for the Blemmyan kinglet Khamaradoye after the fall of Meroe, is very late (c. 420 CE) and includes some strange features that could have resulted from language contact with Old Nubian and Blemmyan (Old Beja dialect), in which no distinction was made between alienable and unalienable possession (for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* p. 40). + In (54), a direct genitive *Aqtoye mtekdi 2* “the two daughters of Aqatoye” should be expected for unalienable possession (cf. Rilly, *La langue du royaume de Méroé,* pp. 525–527). However, the inscription REM 0094, engraved for the Blemmyan kinglet Khamaradoye after the fall of Meroe, is very late (c. 420 CE) and includes some strange features that could have resulted from language contact with Old Nubian and Blemmyan (Old Beja dialect), in which no distinction was made between alienable and unalienable possession (for Beja, see Vanhove, *Le bedja,* p. 40). {{< gloss "(50)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** {g} *heHle*,?|*qoleb :*,[3pl]({sc})|*ahtero-l*,?|*am*,?|***w***-*k*[*b*]-*bx-te*,[pm]({sc})-seize-[vnm-tam]({sc})| -{r} “? seized ? them ???” (REM 1044/68-70) +{r} “? seized ? them ???” (REM 1044/68–70) {{< /gloss >}} {{< gloss "(51)" >}} -{g} *qorte*,palace(?).[gen]({sc})|*dxe-leb :*,child-[det-pl]({sc})|*wide-bese*,brother-[3pl.gen]({sc})|*aroqitm*,Aroqitama|*tdxsene*,Tadakhesene|***w***-*er-k*,[pm]({sc})-take-[plc]({sc})| -{r} “? captured the children of the palace (and) their brother Aroqitama ???” +{g} *qorte*,palace(?).[gen]({sc})|*dxe-leb :*,child-[det-pl]({sc})|*wide-bese*,brother-[3pl.gen]({sc})|*aroqitm*,Aruqitama|*tdxsene*,Tadakhesene(?)|***w***-*er-k*,[pm]({sc})-take-[plc]({sc})| +{r} “? captured the children of the palace (and) their brothers Aruqitama (and) Tadakhesene(?)” (syntax uncertain; REM 1044/152–155) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -766,11 +766,11 @@ Instead of *(y)e-,* an alternative prefix *w-* appears before the verbal forms o {r} “? took control of ??? the two young daughters of Aqatoye” (REM 0094/24) {{< /gloss >}} -There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically parallel to the morpheme *(y)e-,* is also a person subject marker. We should expect it to mark a different person, which can only be the 1st plural or the 3rd singular or plural, since there is no interlocutor in these sections of the royal inscriptions. Unfortunately, the context of these passages with *w-* does not provide much information, chiefly because of our scanty knowledge of Meroitic, but also because of the poor preservation of some parts of the stelae REM 1044 and 1003. However, it seems that these passages are the continuity of the sentences where the subject is in the first person, either explicitly or implicitly. The passage below precedes (51) in Taneyidamani’s stela (REM 1044/141-155). The lines that follow are unfortunately badly eroded. +There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically parallel to the morpheme *(y)e-,* is also a person subject marker. We should expect it to mark a different person, which can only be the 1st plural or the 3rd singular or plural, since there is no interlocutor in these sections of the royal inscriptions. Unfortunately, the context of these passages with *w-* does not provide much information, chiefly because of our scanty knowledge of Meroitic, but also because of the poor preservation of some parts of the stelae REM 1044 and 1003. However, it seems that these passages are the continuity of the sentences where the subject is in the first person, either explicitly or implicitly. The passage below precedes (51) in Taneyidamani’s stela (REM 1044/141–155). The lines that follow are unfortunately badly eroded. {{< gloss "(55)" >}} {r} *Ahotone qorte : drteyose-l :* ***e***-*kede-to :* -{r} “I killed Akhutone, the ??? of the palace(?). +{r} “I killed Akhutune, the ??? of the palace(?). {r} *Nhror wide-l :* ***e***-*kede-to :* {r} I killed (his) brother Nakharura. {r} *kdi : ste-bese : dnetro :* @@ -780,12 +780,12 @@ There is no doubt that the prefixed element *w-,* which is paradigmatically para {r} *krtedse : xrpxe-se-mlo-l : tk-to :* {r} I seized the good ??? governor. {r} *qorte : dxe-leb : wide-bese : Aroqitm : Tdxsene :* ***w***-*erk :* -{r} ? captured the children of the palace(?) (and) their brother Aroqitama ???.” (= ex. 51) +{r} ? captured the children of the palace(?) (and) their brothers Aruqitama and Tadakhesene(?).” (= ex. 51) {{< /gloss >}} Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the verbal compounds *e-kede-to* (twice) and *e-ked-b-to.* In two other sentences, the prefixed pronoun is absent, but implicit, in *dnetro*(?) and *tk-to.* It is difficult to account for the subject shift in the last sentence (51), where the prefixed pronoun *w-* replaces *e-*. No solution is fully satisfactory, but the most acceptable is to assume that the antecedent of the prefixed pronoun is one of the nouns of the same sentence that would be placed as its topic. These topicalized constructions are well documented in Meroitic.[^x34] They can also be found, under Meroitic influence, in the Egyptian texts of the late Napatan royal inscriptions, as in this example from king Nastasen’s stela (ll. 12–13, after *FHN* II: 478): -[^x34]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 547-548. +[^x34]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 547–548. {{< gloss "(56)" >}} {r} **Egyptian** @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ Three of these sentences include the subject pronoun marker *e-* “I” in the {r} They blessed me, (to wit) every mouth.” {{< /gloss >}} -If so, the tentative translation of (51) suggested above must be thoroughly corrected. A singular object is expected, because there is no plural object marker at the end of the verbal compound. Maybe the translation should be “(as for) the children of the palace (?) (and) their brother Aroqitama, they captured Tadakhesene.” If this solution is syntactically acceptable, it is less so morphologically. A plural marker would be expected, like in *qe-be-se* “of them” ([3.2](#ii2) above). In addition, an element *w-* is attested in the late text REM 0094 as a variant of the singular 3rd person pronoun *qo/qe* “he/she, this” (cf. [3.1](#ii1)). Instead of *qe-se, qo-se* "his/her” (lit. “of him/her”), a form *w-se,* with variants *we-se,* and even *w-si,* in the same text, is attested: *semle: w-si* “his wife,” *ste: wese* “his mother” (line 26). Finally, no cognate can be found in other NES-languages, all of which have for “they” at least traces of a plural element *\*-gV.* In conclusion, the prefixed element *w-* in verbal compounds remains unexplained and needs further examination. +If so, the tentative translation of (51) suggested above must be thoroughly corrected. A singular object is expected, because there is no plural object marker at the end of the verbal compound. Maybe the translation should be “(as for) the children of the palace (?) (and) their brother Aruqitama, they captured Tadakhesene.” If this solution is syntactically acceptable, it is less so morphologically. A plural marker would be expected, like in *qe-be-se* “of them” ([3.2](#ii2) above). In addition, an element *w-* is attested in the late text REM 0094 as a variant of the singular 3rd person pronoun *qo/qe* “he/she, this” (cf. [3.1](#ii1)). Instead of *qe-se, qo-se* "his/her” (lit. “of him/her”), a form *w-se,* with variants *we-se,* and even *w-si,* in the same text, is attested: *semle: w-si* “his wife,” *ste: wese* “his mother” (line 26). Finally, no cognate can be found in other NES-languages, all of which have for “they” at least traces of a plural element *\*-gV.* In conclusion, the prefixed element *w-* in verbal compounds remains unexplained and needs further examination. # The Second Person Markers {#iv} @@ -805,14 +805,29 @@ In all these inscriptions, the requests to the gods use verbal moods that fit wi ## Second Person Verbal Suffixes in Optatives and Imperatives {#iv1} -The final prayers of the funerary texts, which Griffith termed “benedictions,” amount to thirteen different types, classified with uppercase letters from A to L, plus a formula “X” added by Hofmann.[^82] The general scheme for benedictions A to D, by far the most frequent, is presented in **Table 3**.[^83] +The final prayers of the funerary texts, which Griffith termed “benedictions,” amount to thirteen different types, classified with uppercase letters from A to L, plus a formula “X” added by Hofmann.[^82] The general scheme for benedictions A to D, by far the most frequent, is presented in (57).[^83] -[^82]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* pp. 42-53; Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 198-200; synthesis in Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163-183 and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 68-74. A further type of benediction was used in a stela recently found in Sedeinga, Exc. No II S 055, cf. Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” pp. 70–71. It remains unattested elsewhere. +[^82]: Griffith, *Karanòg,* pp. 42–53; Hofmann, *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik,* pp. 198–200; synthesis in Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 163–183 and Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 68–74. A further type of benediction was used in a stela recently found in Sedeinga, Exc. No II S 055, cf. Rilly \& Francigny, “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011,” pp. 70–71. It remains unattested elsewhere. [^83]: For benedictions A and B, see also (11)–(14) above. +{{< gloss "(57)" >}} +{r} *Formula A* +{g} *ato*,water|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*he*,drink|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| +{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them drink plentiful water” +{r} *Formula B* +{g} *at*,bread|*mhe*,plentiful|*pVsV-/yi-*,[caus]({sc})|*xr*,eat|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| +{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread +{r} *Formula C* +{g} *x(re)*,meal|*mlo*,good|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| +{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a good meal” +{r} *Formula D* +{g} *x(re)*,meal|*lh-l*,large-[det]({sc})|*(pVsV-/yi-)*,[caus]({sc})|*hol/tx*,present|*-x(e)/bx(e)*,[vnm.sg/pl]({sc})|*-k(e)te*,[opt.2pl]({sc})| +{r} “May you [pl]({sc}) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a large meal” +{{< /gloss >}} + | | [n]({sc}) | [adj]({sc}) | [det]({sc}) | [caus]({sc}) | stem | [vnm]({sc}) | [pl]({sc}) | [opt.2]({sc}) | gloss | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| A | ato | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | he | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) make her/him/them drink plentiful water | +| A | ato | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | he | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | | | B | at | mhe | | pVsV-/yi- | xr | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) make her/him/them eat plentiful bread | | C | x(re) | mlo | -l | (pVsV-/yi-) | hol/tx | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a good meal | | D | x(re) | lh | -l | (pVsV-/yi-) | hol/tx | -x(e), pl. -bx(e) | -k(e) | -te | May you (pl.) present her/him/them (or have her/him/them presented) with a large meal | @@ -822,7 +837,7 @@ The final prayers of the funerary texts, which Griffith termed “benedictions, The prefixed elements *pVsV-* or *yi-,* which obviously have a causative value but are not yet fully understood, have been studied above in [4.3](#iii3). The element *-x(e)* in the singular, *-bx(e)* in the plural, is a verbal number marker that has been analysed in section [3.3](#ii3). As the funerary benedictions are basically prayers to the gods, imperative or optative in the 2nd person plural are expected. The verbal TAM ending here is *-k-te* or *-ke-te* with a plural suffix *-k(e).* The singular TAM ending is *-te,* as seen in examples (19), (29)-(31), each of which contains a prayer to a single god. Cross-linguistically, the singular imperative is generally a simple verbal stem, e.g. English *see!,* Latin *vide!,* and Middle Egyptian *m3!* This is also true for the living NES languages: Nobiin *nàl!,* Midob *kóod!,* etc.[^84] For this reason, the verbal form with ending *-te,* which is used in the royal blessings and funerary benedictions, must be regarded as an optative rather than an imperative. However, an optional particle *-se,* which is added to the verbal compound in several funerary inscriptions,[^85] has an Old Nubian parallel in the command marker -ⲥⲟ or -ⲥⲱ.[^x35] Be it related or borrowed, this particle shows the semantic proximity of the Meroitic optative with the Old Nubian imperative. [^x35]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §4.2. -[^84]: In the Nubian group, for Nobiin: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 145; for Andaandi: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194-195; for Midob: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 58-59. In the Nara group, for Higir: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 467; for Mogoreeb: Elsadig, *Major Word Categories in Nara,* 66. For Tama: Palayer's unpublished grammar, §4.3; for Sungor: Lukas, “Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai,” pp. 192, 198-199; for Mararit: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57-58. For Ama: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* pp. 106, 110 and Stevenson, Rottland \& Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 30; for Afitti, ibid., p. 33. In all these languages, the singular imperative is generally the simple stem of the verb. However, a suffix *-i* is found for some verbs in Nubian, Taman, and Nyima. Suppletive forms for basic verbs are attested in Nara, Taman, and Nyima. +[^84]: In the Nubian group, for Nobiin: Werner, *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 145; for Andaandi: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195; for Midob: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 58–59. In the Nara group, for Higir: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 467; for Mogoreeb: Elsadig, *Major Word Categories in Nara,* p. 66. For Tama: Palayer's unpublished grammar, §4.3; for Sungor: Lukas, “Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai,” pp. 192, 198–199; for Mararit: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57–58. For Ama: Stevenson, *Grammar of the Nyimang Language,* pp. 106, 110 and Stevenson, Rottland \& Jakobi, “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik,” p. 30; for Afitti, ibid., p. 33. In all these languages, the singular imperative is generally the simple stem of the verb. However, a suffix *-i* is found for some verbs in Nubian, Taman, and Nyima. Suppletive forms for basic verbs are attested in Nara, Taman, and Nyima. [^85]: The particle *-se* may have an emphatic role, such as *donc* in French *dis-moi donc!* or the use of the auxiliary *do* in the English counterpart *do tell me!.* The resulting verbal compound is *pVsV-k(e)-te-se,* often reduced to *pVsV-k(e)-se* with regressive assimilation (see (40) above); cf. Hintze, *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik,* p. 75 and Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 563. The imperative proper, in all likelihood, is the verbal form devoid of TAM markers which is used instead of the optative in several funerary texts. As shown in the following examples, it occurs either in one or two of the three main benedictions A, B, and C (a further example of *varietas*), or in all of them. Example (58) is drawn from REM 0369, an offering table from Shablul engraved for a single deceased. Example (59) is cited from a stela found in the same cemetery, REM 0381, and engraved for two persons, hence the plural verbal marker at the end of verbal compounds.[^86] @@ -853,8 +868,8 @@ The imperative proper, in all likelihood, is the verbal form devoid of TAM marke In these imperative forms, there is virtually no plural marker. A final suffix *-k(e)* for the 2nd person plural is expected, but it is only attested in a very small number of funerary inscriptions.[^87] However, it seems that in some epitaphs, the two deities Isis and Osiris, to whom these prayers were addressed, were syntactically regarded as a single god, as shown by the use of a single vocative suffix for both, located after the second noun.[^x36] Moreover, in the final invocations that resume the initial call to the deities, Osiris is sometimes omitted.[^x37] Finally, Isis (or one the goddesses assimilated to her in the Meroitic funerary cults, namely Nephthys, Nut, or Maat), is often figured in the private offering tables and the funerary chapels, whereas Osiris is never present, at least in the non-royal contexts with with which here we are dealing.[^88] I surmise that the instances of the imperative are addressed to Isis. This would explain why the 2nd person singular, and not plural, is used. -[^x36]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 297. -[^x37]: Ibid., 93. +[^x36]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 297. Another solution for the lack of plural marker *-ke* is again the principle of economy, which seems to play an important role in Meroitic, as in Tama (see n. 72). +[^x37]: Ibid., p. 93. [^87]: One clear example is REM 0380, an offering table from Shablul, where benediction B is written with final verb compound *pisixrke.* The form is complete, since it ends with a word divider, it is located in the middle of a line and followed by benediction C. Note that, in this inscription, benedictions A and C have regular optative forms in *-kete.* There may be more instances of [2pl]({sc}) imperative in the benedictions. In particular, it cannot be ruled out that all or part of the verbal compounds ending with *-ke-se* are not assimilated optative forms deriving from *-ke-te-se,* but imperative with plural suffix *-ke* followed by the emphatic particle *-se* (see n. 124). [^88]: In the Meroitic private funerary iconography, the male counterpart to Isis is Anubis, or more rarely Thot. The local names of these Egyptian gods are unknown. @@ -878,7 +893,7 @@ Furthermore, a not uncommon variant of the verbal suffix *-te,* found only in th {{< /gloss >}} From the above, it appears that the markers of the Meroitic imperative and optative moods are as follows: -| | [2sg]({sc}) | [2pl]({sc}) | | +| | [2sg]({sc}) | [2pl]({sc}) | [impp]({sc}) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Imperative | -∅ | -k(e) | (-se) | | Optative | -∅-te/-to | -k(e)-te | (-se) | @@ -887,13 +902,13 @@ From the above, it appears that the markers of the Meroitic imperative and optat The use of the suffix *-k/-g* to express the plurality of actors in the imperative (and in other moods) is widespread in Nilo-Saharan languages and particularly frequent in the NES family. Although it may have the same origin as the verbal plural marker, it must not be confused with it. The exception here is Ama, where the same morpheme *-(ì)d̪ì* is used both verbal plural marker ([3.3.2](#ii32)) and marker of the plural imperative: *kílí* “hear!,” pl. *kíld̪ì* “hear ye!”[^90] In Nara, the plural imperative is marked with a suffix *-aga.* This morpheme is attested in the two major dialects, namely in Higir *ay* “make!,” pl. *ay-aga* “make ye!”[^x40] and in Mogoreeb, *aw* “make!,” pl. *aw-aga* “make ye!”[^x41] In Mararit (Taman group), the plural imperative is marked with a morpheme *-k-,* which can be prefixed or suffixed according to the verb classes: *sîn* “eat!,” pl. *kí-síŋ-gì* “eat ye!” (prefixed); *kɛ̀dɛ̀k* “cut!,” pl. *kɛ̀d-k-ɛ̀k* “cut ye!” (suffixed).[^91] In the Nubian group, the suffix *\*-k/-g* is perhaps preserved in Midob in a palatalized form *-ic*: *kóod* “see!,” pl. *kóod-íc* “see ye!,”[^x42] but the difference with the plural verbal marker, as in Ama, is not clear. The other branches of Nubian seem to have innovated separately. In Andaandi, the [2pl]({sc}) imperative is marked with a suffix *-we*[^x38] and with a suffix *-an* in Old Nubian and Nobiin.[^x39] However, Old Nubian has a morpheme *-ke* “you,” which Van Gerven Oei analyzes as a subject clitic.[^92] It is not used for the “positive” imperative like in Meroitic, but is part of the jussive -ⲛⲕⲉ, vetitive -ⲧⲁⲛⲕⲉ(ⲥⲟ), and affirmative -ⲗⲕⲉ/-ⲥⲕⲉ. This morpheme is probably related to the Meroitic suffix *-k(e)* used in the plural imperative. -[^x38]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194-195. -[^x39]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.1.5, Werner, *Grammatik de Nobiin,* pp. 145-146. +[^x38]: Armbruster, *Dongolese Nubian,* pp. 194–195. +[^x39]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.1.5, Werner, *Grammatik de Nobiin,* pp. 145–146. [^x40]: Thompson, "Nera,” p. 487. [^x41]: Elsadig, *Major Word Categories in Nara,* p. 66. -[^x42]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 145-146. +[^x42]: Werner, *Tìdn-áal,* pp. 145–146. [^90]: Recall that the dental stop *d̪* is a development of Proto-NES *\*g* which is specific to the Nyima group. -[^91]: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57-58 (version updated for tones, 2019). +[^91]: El-Nazir, *Major Word Categories in Mararit,* pp. 57–58 (version updated for tones, 2019). [^92]: Van Gerven Oei, *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian,* §10.1.6. ## The Second Person Singular and Plural Pronouns {#iv2} @@ -909,7 +924,7 @@ On the reverse of the stela, an inscription in Meroitic cursive script is engrav {r} “O Apedemak (who are) in Daqari, to Amanishakheto, the ruler, the Candace, give the life from you [sg]({sc}), give the life from you [pl]({sc})!” (REM 1293) {{< /gloss >}} -The god is here invited to shower his gifts upon the ruling queen, and chiefly the most precious of them, *pwrite* “life, vital strength.” Similar instances of this prayer for King Amanakhareqerama have previously been quoted in (29) and (30). The royal text REM 1293 is engraved with great care and a sense of aesthetics that is missing in so many private inscriptions. The different phrases are accurately separated by word dividers. Conspicuously, the phrases *pwritrese* and *pwrite debse* do not include a word divider after *pwrite.* Furthermore, in the first group, *pwrite* and its extension are agglomerated into a single unit. Due to the conventions of the Meroitic alphasyllabary (see [2](#i)), the second element must have been *arese,* with an initial /a/ which was not explicitly written, because it occurred in internal position in this contracted phrase. The noun *pwrite* was pronounced /bawarit/ with the zero value of the grapheme *e.* So, the sequence *pwrite + arese* was pronounced /bawaritaresə/ and was accordingly spelled *pwritrese,* with default vowel /a/ after *t.* Additionally, the second term could not be *\*\*rese* because the phoneme /r/, in Meroitic as well as in all the NES languages, cannot occur in initial position.[^x43] +The god is here invited to shower his gifts upon the ruling queen, and chiefly the most precious of them, *pwrite* “life, vital strength.” Similar instances of this prayer for King Amanakhareqerama have previously been quoted in (29) and (30). The royal text REM 1293 is engraved with great care and a sense of aesthetics that is missing in so many private inscriptions. The different phrases are accurately separated by word dividers. Conspicuously, the phrases *pwritrese* and *pwrite debse* do not include a word divider after *pwrite.* Furthermore, in the first group, *pwrite* and its extension are agglomerated into a single unit. Due to the conventions of the Meroitic alphasyllabary (see [2](#i)), the second element must have been *arese,* with an initial /a/ which was not explicitly written, because it occurred in internal position in this contracted phrase. The noun *pwrite* was pronounced /bawarit/ with the zero value of the grapheme *e.* So, the sequence *pwrite + arese* was pronounced /bawaritaresə/ and was accordingly spelled *pwritrese,* with default vowel /a/ after *t.* Additionally, the second term could not be *\*rese* because the phoneme /r/, in Meroitic as well as in all the NES languages, cannot occur in initial position.[^x43] [^x43]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 230. @@ -951,11 +966,11 @@ This wording was already used in the Egyptian texts of the royal inscriptions en {r} “Amun-Re of Gematon (Kawa) appeared as he (the king) stood before him, {r} *dj ntr pn ḥr=f r=f* {r} and this god turned his face to him -{r} *jr=f ꜣt ꜥꜣt ꜥḥꜥ ḥr sdm ddwt= f nb* +{r} *jr=f ꜣ.t ꜥꜣ.t ꜥḥꜥ ḥr sdm ḏd.wt=f nb* {r} and spent a long time standing and listening to all that he said {r} *dj=f n=f* ***ꜥnḫ dd wꜣs nb ḫr=f*** {r} and gave him **all life, stability, and power from him (Amun),** -{r} ***snb*** [***nb***] ***ḫr***[***=f***] ***ꜣwt-jb nb ḫr=f*** +{r} ***snb*** [***nb***] ***ḫr***[***=f***] ***ꜣw.t-jb nb ḫr=f*** {r} [**all**] **health from him, and all joy from him**.” (Enthronement stela of Anlamani (Kawa VIII/ 27–28)) {{< /gloss >}} @@ -966,17 +981,17 @@ In all these passages, the Egyptian preposition *ḫr* is used: *ꜥnḫ nb ḫr In the Meroitic stela from Naga, the context bears similarities to the situation in (32). There are also three persons, namely the ruler, Amanishakheto, the lion-god Apedemak and his wife Amesemi, all of them figured on the obverse of the stela. The great difference between the Egyptian and the Meroitic texts is the position of the enunciator. In (32), Mut is the enunciator (1st person) and speaks to Amun (2nd person) about the king (3rd person). In REM 1293, the enunciator, as is common in the Meroitic prayers, is a fictive individual, who is never present in the text, so that there are no 1st person markers. He speaks to Apedemak and possibly to Amesemi (2nd person) about the queen (3rd person). The gift of life is presented to the ruler by Apedemak and the source of this life is expressed, first, by the phrase *are-se* and second by the phrase *deb-se.* The latter obviously includes the pronominal plural marker *-b,* cf. *qe-be-se* “their,” lit. "of them, from them" ([3.2](#ii2))[^94] In conclusion, the only solution is to regard *are-se* as a 2nd person singular possessive referring here to Apedemak, and *de-b-se* as a 2nd person plural possessive referring to both Apedemak and Amesemi. -[^94]: The Meroitic postposition *-se* can be appended to the name of the giver in inscriptions found on funerary offerings. In this case, *-se* is best translated as “from”; see Rilly, “Les chouettes ont des oreilles,” pp. 489-491. +[^94]: The Meroitic postposition *-se* can be appended to the name of the giver in inscriptions found on funerary offerings. In this case, *-se* is best translated as “from”; see Rilly, “Les chouettes ont des oreilles,” pp. 489–491. ### Personal Pronouns in Proto-Nubian -The two possessive pronouns discussed above suggest a basic form *are* for “you (sg.)” and *de-b* for “you (pl.)” These forms differ considerably from the pronouns I reconstructed in proto-NES, namely *\*i* for “you (sg.)" and *\*i-gi* for “you (pl.).”[^x45] For Proto-Nubian, I suggested *\*i-r/\*i-n* (sg.) and *\*i-gi* or *\*u-gi* (pl.). It is beyond the scope of this article to explain in detail on which bases these proto-forms were put forward. Suffice it to say that the pronouns attested in the Taman and Nyima groups, alongside with the most conservative dialects of Nara, are very similar to each other and provided the main basis for my reconstruction. By contrast, the personal pronouns in the Nubian family show considerable variations that are difficult to reconcile. The two proto-forms I worked out were mostly based on the genitives of these pronouns, which have a better consistency among Nubian languages and with the other branches of the NES family. +The two possessive pronouns discussed above suggest a basic form *are* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *de-b* for “you [pl]({sc})” These forms differ considerably from the pronouns I reconstructed in proto-NES, namely *\*i* for “you [sg]({sc})” and *\*i-gi* for “you [pl]({sc}).”[^x45] For Proto-Nubian, I suggested *\*i-r/\*i-n* [sg]({sc}) and *\*i-gi* or *\*u-gi* [pl]({sc}). It is beyond the scope of this article to explain in detail on which bases these proto-forms were put forward. Suffice it to say that the pronouns attested in the Taman and Nyima groups, alongside with the most conservative dialects of Nara, are very similar to each other and provided the main basis for my reconstruction. By contrast, the personal pronouns in the Nubian family show considerable variations that are difficult to reconcile. The two proto-forms I worked out were mostly based on the genitives of these pronouns, which have a better consistency among Nubian languages and with the other branches of the NES family. [^x45]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 519, no. 184 and p. 528, no. 200. During the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium held in 2019 in Vienna, Angelika Jakobi, the leading expert on Nubian, delivered a paper entitled “The Nubian Subject Pronouns.” She revisited the reconstruction of these morphemes in Proto-Nubian and suggested new proto-forms. For the 1st person singular and the 3rd person singular and plural, her reconstructions are not so different from mine. However, there are significant discrepancies for the 1st person plural and the 2nd person singular and plural. For the latter, she suggests *\*ed* “you (sg.)” and *\*ud-i* “you (pl.).” These proto-forms are very close to the Birgid forms *edi* and *udi,* but quite different from the Midob counterparts *íin* and *ùŋŋú.* Of course, it is tempting to believe that Jakobi’s reconstruction is mainly based on Birgid. However, this language, in many respects, is the most conservative within the Nubian family, whereas Midob is one of the most innovative.[^95] -[^95]: For conservative aspects in Birgid, see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 367-368. +[^95]: For conservative aspects in Birgid, see Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 367–368. In Old Nubian, we find ⲉⲓⲣ “you (sg.)” and ⲟⲩⲣ "you (pl.),” in Nobiin, *ìr* and *úr* respectively, and Mattokki–Andaandi *er* and *ir.* I had previously interpreted the final *-r* as an original article appended to personal pronouns in Proto-Nubian.[^x46] In Midob and in Tama, the article is actually *-r,* but it was *-l* in Meroitic and early Old Nubian, so that it must also have been *-l* in Proto-Nubian. In addition, the Midob reflexes of the Proto-Nubian liquids are often unpredictable,[^y1] whereas they are stable in Nile Nubian. For these reasons, I now think that at least in Proto-Nubian, the final *-r* was part of the stem of these personal pronouns. @@ -1006,28 +1021,28 @@ As this vacillation between /r/ and /d/ is shared by languages that belong to di In my previous reconstruction of Proto-Nubian, I assumed that the plural marker of the subject pronouns “we,” “you (pl.),” and “they” was *\*-gi* and consequently suggested *\*agi* for “we” and *\*igi* ~ *\*ugi* for “you (pl.).” That assumption was based on parallels with Taman and Nyima, where this morpheme is easily reconstructable. However, I could not account for the consonant /d/ in the Birgid reflexes *adi* and *udi.*[^99] If the Proto-Nubian pronoun of the second person singular is *\*ed,* the Birgid reflexes become perfectly regular and the Proto-Nubian plural marker is definitely *\*i.* This could be a development of Proto-NES *\*-gi,* which implies that *\*g* was already lost in Proto-Nubian, like in modern English *night* and *brought.* In conclusion, if Proto-Nubian “you (sg.)” was indeed *\*ed,* a plural form *\*ud-i* is a consistent reconstruction. The initial vowel *\*u* instead of the expected *\*e* still has to be explained, but it is substantiated by the Old Nubian, Ajang,[^100] and Birgid reflexes. -[^99]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 250-251 and n. 7. +[^99]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 250–251 and n. 7. [^100]: Jakobi, “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko,” t. 5. This alternation between /d/ and /r/ is obvious when comparing Meroitic and Nubian. Several Meroitic words related to Nubian have /d/ where Nubian has /r/. This is for instance the case for the words for “brother,” in Meroitic *wide* and in Proto-Nubian *wer-i.*[^101] In addition, the Meroitic phoneme /d/ has two different realizations: alveolar [d] in initial position and after another consonant, retroflex [ɖ] in intervocalic position.[^x47] The retroflex consonant was acoustically so close to [r] that Egyptians and Greeks transcribed this sound with the grapheme “r.” That is why the capital of the kingdom, spelled *Medewi* in Meroitic, was written *Mrw.t* by the Egyptians and Μερόη by the Greeks. [^x47]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 18. -[^101]: Ibid., pp. 367-368. +[^101]: Ibid., pp. 367–368. -Consequently, the two Meroitic pronouns *are* and *deb* for the second person singular and plural, are reliable cognates of the Proto-Nubian forms *\*ed* and *\*ud-i.* The singular *are* was pronounced /ar/ ([5.2.1](#iv21) and strongly resembles its Dongolawi counterpart *er.* The plural form *deb* was pronounced /deba/ and must derive from an older form *\*adeb.* For prosodic reasons, the initial vowel was weakened and finally dropped.[^102] Thus, the vacillation between /d/ and /r/, which was evidenced in the Nubian group, was also present in Meroitic, with /r/ in the singular and /d/ in the plural. Another possibility would be to that the original pronoun was *\*areb,* pronounced /areba/. This form would also have undergone the same apheresis, but, as /r/ can never be initial in Meroitic, it would have shifted to /d/, the closest stop to this vibrant. Finally, recall that /ba/ is the regular Meroitic reflex of Proto-SON *\*-gu,* which is known as plural marker for demonstratives in the eastern branch of the NES family.[^103] In this respect, the formation of the plural form in Meroitic differs not only from Proto-Nubian, where a plural marker *\*i* was used, but also from Proto-NES, where this morpheme was *\*gi*. +Consequently, the two Meroitic pronouns *are* and *deb* for the second person singular and plural, are reliable cognates of the Proto-Nubian forms *\*ed* and *\*ud-i.* The singular *are* was pronounced /ar/ ([5.2.1](#iv21)) and strongly resembles its Dongolawi counterpart *er.* The plural form *deb* was pronounced /deba/ and must derive from an older form *\*adeb.* For prosodic reasons, the initial vowel was weakened and finally dropped.[^102] Thus, the vacillation between /d/ and /r/, which was evidenced in the Nubian group, was also present in Meroitic, with /r/ in the singular and /d/ in the plural. Another possibility would be to that the original pronoun was *\*areb,* pronounced /areba/. This form would also have undergone the same apheresis, but, as /r/ can never be initial in Meroitic, it would have shifted to /d/, the closest stop to this vibrant. Finally, recall that /ba/ is the regular Meroitic reflex of Proto-SON *\*-gu,* which is known as plural marker for demonstratives in the eastern branch of the NES family.[^103] In this respect, the formation of the plural form in Meroitic differs not only from Proto-Nubian, where a plural marker *\*i* was used, but also from Proto-NES, where this morpheme was *\*gi*. -[^102]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 29-30, 289-291. +[^102]: Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 29–30, 289–291. [^103]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p. 389. The eastern branch comprises Meroitic, Nubian, and Nara ([1](#intro)). ### The Second Person Singular Subject Pronoun in Personal Names {#iv24} Most Meroitic personal names, and particularly the rulers’, are complex compound words. This resulted in names being unique most of the time, and it may actually have been the purpose of this complexity and length. Among the royal names, only Arkamani was used twice, a sharp contrast to the seven Mentuhoteps and the eleven Ramesseses of the Egyptian history. These Kushite royal names seem to have been the birth-names of the rulers, to which the name of a god, most frequently Amun, was possibly – but not systematically – added at the time of their ascension to the throne. In some of them, “Amun” is fully integrated into the syntax of the compound, so that it may originally have been present, be it an actual birth-name or a completely new name given to the ruler. For instance, Amannote-erike means “the one whom Amon of Thebes has begotten” and it is obvious that in this case, the god name was not added at a later stage. Many Kushite royal names are theophoric and probably fall within the Egyptian naming tradition. For example, “Natakamani” probably means “Amun is strong” and is the Meroitic counterpart of Egyptian Nakht-Amun or Amun-Nakht. -However, several royal names seem to follow a local tradition of naming an individual from physical features or temperament and can therefore be considered genuine birth-names. A stunning example of this tradition among private individuals is the name of the mother of a deceased woman from Sedeinga. She was called *Xmlowiteke,* which means “she who likes a good meal.”[^104] It can be either the birth-name of a greedy baby or a nickname given later during her lifetime. In the royal sphere, a name like Aspelta falls in the same tradition. This name was recently identified by the author among the Meroitic graffiti of the Great Enclosure in Musawwarat es-Sufra. It was written *Ispleto*.[^x48] If the first segment *Is-* is the Meroitic cognate of Old Nubian ⲉⲓⲥ- “other,”[^105] it could mean “another is given” and refer, for example, to the birth of a second son, a possible heir to the throne. This name would be appropriate for a ruler like Aspelta, who succeeded his brother Anlamani at a very young age. +However, several royal names seem to follow a local tradition of naming an individual from physical features or temperament and can therefore be considered genuine birth-names. A stunning example of this tradition among private individuals is the name of the mother of a deceased woman from Sedeinga. She was called *Xmlowiteke,* which means “she who likes a good meal.”[^104] It can be either the birth-name of a greedy baby or a nickname given later during her lifetime. In the royal sphere, a name like Aspelta falls in the same tradition. The name of this Napatan king, written in Meroitic, was recently identified by the author among the graffiti of Great Enclosure in Musawwarat es-Sufra. It was written *Isplto*.[^x48] If the first segment *Is-* is the Meroitic cognate of Old Nubian ⲉⲓⲥ- “other,”[^105] it could mean “another is given” and refer, for example, to the birth of a second son, a possible heir to the throne. This name would be appropriate for a ruler like Aspelta, who succeeded his brother Anlamani at a very young age. [^x48]: Rilly, “Graffiti for Gods and Kings.”" -[^104]: This name occurs in the inscribed lintel II T 302 d2, found in 2017: see Rilly \& Francigny, “Closer to the Ancestors,”" 70. -[^105]: Nobiin *íccí,* Andaandi *ecce-l.* +[^104]: This name occurs in the inscribed lintel II T 302 d2, found in 2017: see Rilly \& Francigny, “Closer to the Ancestors,” p. 70. +[^105]: Nobiin *íccí,* Andaandi *ecce-l.* The verb *pl(e)-* "give, offer" is attested in the funerary bendiction D (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* p. 173). This naming tradition, in spite of the increasing influence of Islam, still exists in some parts of Sudan. In her study of the personal names among the Midob, a Nubian-speaking population of Northern Darfur, Abeer Bashir gives several examples of personal names whose meaning is connected with physical or social particularities, or with events that happened at the time these individuals were born:[^ex66] @@ -1040,15 +1055,15 @@ This naming tradition, in spite of the increasing influence of Islam, still exis {r} *Ábágàlò* ← *ábá* “grandmother” + *gálò* “lost” = “who has lost his/her grandmother” {{< /gloss >}} -Interestingly, two royal names belonging to this category of “contextual” names include a first element *are* which is obviously the same as the 2nd person pronoun identified above. They are the names of Queen Amanirenas (*Amnirense*) and king Amanakhareqerema (*Amnxreqerem*).[^106] The god names *Mni* “Amun” and *Amnxe* “Amanakh” were added to their original names when they received the royal crown of Kush.[^107] Their former names were *Arense* and *Areqerem* respectively. The vowel /a/ is never written in internal position (here after *Amni-* or *Amanx-*). However, it must have been present in the pronunciation because, as addressed above in [5.2.1](#iv21) when analysing the compound *pwritrese* “the life from you,” /r/ can never be initial in Meroitic and its related languages. +Interestingly, two royal names belonging to this category of “contextual” names include a first element *are* which is obviously the same as the 2nd person pronoun identified above. They are the names of Queen Amanirenas (*Amnirense*) and king Amanakhareqerema (*Amnxreqerem*).[^106] The god names *Mni* “Amun” and *Amnxe* “Amanakh” were added to their original names when they received the royal crown of Kush.[^107] Their former names were *Arense* and *Areqerem* respectively. The vowel /a/ is never written in internal position (here after *Amni-* or *Amnax-*). However, it must have been present at the beginning of *Arense* and *Areqerem,* because, as addressed above in [5.2.1](#iv21) when analysing the compound *pwritrese* “the life from you,” /r/ can never be initial in Meroitic and its related languages. -[^106]: Queen Amanirenas reigned around the end of the first c. BCE and the beginning of the first c. CE, Amanakhareqerema at the end of the first c. CE. For their reigns, see Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 242-252, 286-291 and Kuckertz, "Amanakhareqerema.” +[^106]: Queen Amanirenas reigned around the end of the first c. BCE and the beginning of the first c. CE, Amanakhareqerema at the end of the first c. CE. For their reigns, see Rilly, “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung,” pp. 242–252, 286–291 and Kuckertz, "Amanakhareqerema.” [^107]: Amanakh, written *Amnx(e)* or *Mnx(e),* was obviously a hypostasis of Amun, but his identity remains a mystery. The name is not dubious; it appears in the names of king Amanakhabale and of many princes and queens. However, it is never independently attested and no Egyptian parallel is known so far. -The first element, *are* “you (sg.)” is followed by the sequences *-nase* (written *nse*) in the first name and *-qerema* (written qerem) in the second. They display striking resemblances with the Nubian adjectives “tall” and "black.” In Old Nubian, these are ⳟⲁⲥⲥ- and ⲟⲩⲇⲙ- respectively, in Nobiin *nàssí* and *úrúm,* and in Andaandi *nosso* and *urumme*. In addition, the correspondence in initial position between Meroitic *qe/qo* /kʷu/ and Nubian /u/ is well attested, for instance between Meroitic *qore* “king” and Old Nubian ⲟⲩⲣⲟⲩ. The birth-name of the queen, namely *(A)rense* "Are-nase" would therefore mean “you are tall” and the birth-name of the king, namely *(A)reqerem* "Are-qerema" “you are black.” The elision of the copula (*-o* was expected in final position) is noteworthy, but this morpheme has so far been attested only with 3rd person constructions.[^109] The names were possibly given to them soon after they were born and described the physical appearance they had at this young age. When they ascended to the throne, these names were not considered incompatible with royal status: tall stature and black skin are, for example, features that were commonly associated with Osiris, the mythical first king of Egypt. The names of Amun or his hypostasis Amanakh were just added to their birth-names, according to the custom mentioned above. +The first element, *are* “you [sg]({sg})” is followed by the sequences “-nase” (written *nse*) in the first name and “-qerema” (written *qerem*) in the second. They display striking resemblances with the Nubian adjectives “tall” and "black.” In Old Nubian, these are ⳟⲁⲥⲥ- and ⲟⲩⲇⲙ- respectively, in Nobiin *nàssí* and *úrúm,* and in Andaandi *nosso* and *urumme*. In addition, the correspondence in initial position between Meroitic *qe/qo* /kʷu/ and Nubian /u/ is well attested, for instance between Meroitic *qore* “king” and Old Nubian ⲟⲩⲣⲟⲩ. The birth-name of the queen, namely *(A)rense* "Are-nase" would therefore mean “you are tall” and the birth-name of the king, namely *(A)reqerem* "Are-qerema" “you are black.” The elision of the copula (*-o* was expected in final position) is noteworthy, but this morpheme has so far been attested only with 3rd person constructions.[^109] The names were possibly given to them soon after they were born and described the physical appearance they had at this young age. When they ascended to the throne, these names were not considered incompatible with royal status: tall stature and black skin are, for example, features that were commonly associated with Osiris, the mythical first king of Egypt. The names of Amun or his hypostasis Amanakh were just added to their birth-names, according to the custom mentioned above. -[^108]: The Old Nubian word ⲟⲩⲣⲟⲩ is neither borrowed from Meroitic nor from Late Egyptian *(p-)uro.* Its stem can be found in many other words, like ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛ “chief” and is probably the word ⲟⲩⲣ “head” (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p, 364). In Meroitic itself, alternative forms with initial *w-* instead of *q-* can be found locally (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 39-42). -[^109]: The absence of copula (final *-o* expected) or of any verb “to be” (stem ne-) is certainly puzzling, but as this is the first time a sentence with a probable second person subject pronoun is attested, one cannot expect to find the same syntactic features as in sentences where the subject is a 3rd person and not a pronoun. +[^108]: The Old Nubian word ⲟⲩⲣⲟⲩ is neither borrowed from Meroitic nor from Late Egyptian *(p-)uro.* Its stem can be found in many other words, like ⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛ “chief” and is probably the word ⲟⲩⲣ “head” (Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* p, 364). In Meroitic itself, alternative forms with initial *w-* instead of *q-* can be found locally (Rilly, *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 39–42). +[^109]: The absence of copula (final *-o* expected) or of any verb “to be” (stem *ne-*) is certainly puzzling, but as this is the first time a sentence with a probable second person subject pronoun is attested, one cannot expect to find the same syntactic features as in sentences where the subject is a 3rd person and not a pronoun. [^x109]: Rilly, *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique,* pp. 475, 486. ## The Prefixed Second Person Singular Marker in the Verbal Complex {#iv3} @@ -1057,7 +1072,7 @@ We have previously seen that there were in Meroitic two types of person markers In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show that a small corpus of Meroitic inscriptions on papyrus, leather strips, and ostraca, which were hitherto regarded as private letters, were actually protection spells.[^110] They were purchased by pilgrims from the temples, especially the temple of Amun in Qasr Ibrim, where the major part of these texts were found by the British team of the Egypt Exploration Society. I termed them “Amuletic Oracular Decrees,” after the name of the same type of texts attested in Egypt in the early first millennium BCE. Because of the rich vocabulary they include, describing all kind of misfortunes from which their owner will be protected, the translation of these inscriptions is still in an early stage. However, the scheme of the introductive parts of the texts is clear. They are divided in two groups according the prefixes of the verbal forms, *y(i)-* or *d-*. -[^110]: Rilly, “Deux exemples de décrets amulétiques oraculaires en méroïtique" and *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 216-226. +[^110]: Rilly, “Deux exemples de décrets amulétiques oraculaires en méroïtique" and *La langue du Royaume de Méroé,* pp. 216–226. {{< gloss "(67)" >}} {r} **Meroitic** @@ -1080,7 +1095,7 @@ In the 2000 issue of the *Meroitic Newsletter,* I published an article to show t {g} *mlowi*,health|*d-n-se-l-o*,[pm-vc-det-cop]({sc})|*bnebeseni*,?| {{< /gloss >}} -The decrees always begin with the mention of the beneficiary in the vocative. They can be called either by their name or by their title. The verbal compound in formula A (*yirohe-se-l-o-wi/d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*) is partly obscure, but it is not an optative or an imperative ([5.1](#iv1). It is a periphrastic form – probably with an aspectual or modal value – since it includes the determiner *-l* used as nominalizer, followed by the copula. Accordingly, an explicit personal marker is expected, more precisely a 2nd person singular, because of the verbal compound. Many texts are so damaged that it is impossible to know whether the initial vocative phrase included a name or a title, but each time it is preserved, the formulae with initial *d-* occur after the titles and those with initial *y(i)-* after the proper names. This initial *d-* is very likely the expected 2nd person subject prefix, a short version of the independent pronoun *are/\*ade* “you (sg.)” or the singular of *de-b* “you (pl.),” without the plural suffix *-b.* +The decrees always begin with the mention of the beneficiaries in the vocative. They can be called either by their name or by their title. The verbal compound in formula A (*yirohe-se-l-o-wi/d-irohe-se-l-o-wi*) is partly obscure, but it is not an optative or an imperative ([5.1](#iv1)). It is a periphrastic form – probably with an aspectual or modal value – since it includes the determiner *-l* used as nominalizer, followed by the copula. Accordingly, an explicit personal marker is expected, more precisely a [2sg]([sc]), because of the vocative. Many texts are so damaged that it is impossible to know whether the initial vocative phrase included a name or a title, but each time it is preserved, the formulae with initial *d-* occur after the titles and those with initial *y(i)-* after the proper names. This initial *d-* is very likely the expected 2nd person subject prefix, a short version of the independent pronoun *are/\*ade* “you [sg]({sc})” or the singular of *de-b* “you [pl]({sc}),” without the plural suffix *-b.* The verb used in formula A is *arohe,* which, in these oracular decrees, probably means “take under someone’s protection”.[^111] It can also signify “take control,” hence “take prisoner” in military contexts (see (20)). From the two nouns groups present in formula A, only *wte-li* "life(time)" is known. A very tentative translation of formula A with prefix *d-* would be “Oh you, the XXX, you shall (?) be protected for your lifetime and your ???.” The other prefix *y(i)-* remains an enigma. It is not certain that it can be also regarded as a personal marker. Since *yi-* is a late spelling for initial /i/, it may be present in the form of the sign *i* in the verbal compound *d-i-(a)rohe-se-l-o-wi.* In that case, *yiroheselowi* would be a variant of *d-irohe-se-l-o-wi* unmarked for person. @@ -1092,11 +1107,11 @@ In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified | | 1sg | 2sg | 3sg | 1pl | 2pl | 3pl | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | -| **Independent Subject Pronoun** | ? | are (← \*ade) | qo | ? | deb | qoleb | +| **Independent Subject Pronoun** | ? | are (< \*ade) | qo | ? | deb | qoleb | | **Prefixed Person Marker** | (y)e- | d- | w-(?) | ? | ? | ? | | **Possessive Pronoun** | ? | arese | (a)qese | ? | debse | (a)qebese | | **Imperative Person Marker** | – | -∅ | – | – | -k(e) | – | -| **Optative Person Marker*** | ? | -∅-te | ? | ? | -k(e)-te | ? | +| **Optative Person Marker** | ? | -∅-te | ? | ? | -k(e)-te | ? | **~~Table 6. Meroitic Person Markers~~** @@ -1157,71 +1172,71 @@ In conclusion, a general table of the personal markers that have been identified # Bibliography -Armbruster, Charles. H. *Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. +Armbruster, Charles. H. ![*Dongolese Nubian: A Grammar.*](bib:9148401a-3ae7-423a-aab5-05e0dd4a9bcb) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. -Bashir, Abeer. “Address and Reference Terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian).” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 133–153. +Bashir, Abeer. ![“Address and Reference Terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian).”](bib:a03136b3-82d7-443d-874b-1c2168633274) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 133–153. -Bossong, Georg. “Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond.” In *New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988,* edited by D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991: pp. 143–170. +Bossong, Georg. ![“Differential Object Marking in Romance and Beyond.”](bib:ff0fbcab-ec56-4e58-bb95-ffe3f22dd188) In *New Analyses in Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Urbana-Champaign, April 7–9, 1988,* edited by D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991: pp. 143–170. -Browne, Gerald M. *Old Nubian Dictionary.* Leuven: Peeters, 1996. +Browne, Gerald M. ![*Old Nubian Dictionary.*](bib:d9505774-ee71-4ab7-b076-96f26507ca47) Leuven: Peeters, 1996. -Carrier, Claude. “La stèle méroïtique d’Abratoye (Caire, J.E. n° 90008).” *Meroitic Newsletter* 28 (2001): pp. 21–53. +Carrier, Claude. ![“La stèle méroïtique d’Abratoye (Caire, J.E. n° 90008).”](bib:2ea61f1c-6ba6-4972-90a7-7a1740a571f1) *Meroitic Newsletter* 28 (2001): pp. 21–53. -Comrie, Bernard. *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.* Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. +Comrie, Bernard. ![*Language Universals and Linguistic Typology.*](bib:d80a3429-b176-4187-a774-35d473867ba3) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Cotte, Pierre. *Langage et linéarité.* Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 1999. -Creissels, Denis. *Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique,* vol. 1: *Catégories et construction.* Paris: Lavoisier, 2006. +Creissels, Denis. ![*Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique,* vol. 1: *Catégories et constructions.*](bib:bb96ade9-c486-46f0-b4c6-6518e9b4fb2a) Paris: Lavoisier, 2006. -Creissels, Denis. *Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique,* vol. 2: *La phrase.* Paris: Lavoisier, 2006. +Creissels, Denis. ![*Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique,* vol. 2: *La phrase.*](bib:983248b6-1e48-4634-8197-e51530dc182c) Paris: Lavoisier, 2006. -Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories.” In *Number: Constructions and Semantics. Case Studies From Africa, Amazonia, India & Oceania,* edited by Anne Storch and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: pp. 57–76. +Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Pluractionality and the Distribution of Number Marking across Categories.”](bib:96dbf206-7b8d-4392-883f-815930e01b33) In *Number: Constructions and Semantics. Case Studies From Africa, Amazonia, India & Oceania,* edited by Anne Storch and Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: pp. 57–76. -Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Tama.” In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 305–333. +Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. ![“Tama.”](bib:d413fec6-b609-47a4-98f6-24b8a6d51c6d) In *Coding Participant Marking: Construction Types in Twelve African Languages,* edited by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009: pp. 305–333. -Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. *Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. I: *From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC.* Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1994. +Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. ![*Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. I: *From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC.*](bib:d29777ee-36f9-40ee-90c7-d998025c6037) Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1994. -Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. *Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. II: *From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC.* Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1996. +Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. ![*Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. II: *From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC.*](bib:5dde9b0f-bace-4502-b444-3776e2a0ecd1) Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1996. -Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. *Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. III: *From the First to the Sixth Century AD.* Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1998. +Eide, Tormod, Tomas Hägg, Richard Holton Pierce & László Török, eds. ![*Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Between the 8th Century BC and the 6th AD,* vol. III: *From the First to the Sixth Century AD.*](bib:b3ac6690-51c7-4d9a-8656-81a3ffcffce0) Bergen: University of Bergen, Department of Classics, 1998. -El-Guzuuli, El-Shafie. "The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 91–107. +El-Guzuuli, El-Shafie. !["The Uses and Orthography of the Verb 'Say' in Andaandi.”](bib:839d4394-15d4-44f8-a2ef-fb03df375d99) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 91–107. -El-Nazir Mustafa. *Major Word Categories in Mararit.* MA Thesis, University of Cologne, 2016. +El-Nazir, Mustafa. *Major Word Categories in Mararit.* MA Thesis, University of Cologne, 2016. Elsadig, Omda. *Major Word Categories in Nara.* MA Thesis, University of Cologne, 2016. -Ferrandino, Gilda. *Studio dei testi reali meroitici (III a.C.-IV d.C.). Approccio interdisciplinare per la comprensione dell’evoluzione di una cultura dell’Africa Subsahariana.* PhD Thesis, L’Orientale University, Naples, 2016. +Ferrandino, Gilda. ![*Studio dei testi reali meroitici (III a.C.-IV d.C.). Approccio interdisciplinare per la comprensione dell’evoluzione di una cultura dell’Africa Subsahariana.*](bib:0626af57-e40a-4f1d-bf03-db0d8fa92468) PhD Thesis, L’Orientale University, Naples, 2016. -Gardiner, Alan H. *Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs.* 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universite Press, 1957. +Gardiner, Alan H. ![*Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs.*](bib:727afc5b-fdfa-4dc2-96ce-9b10de481f9b) 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge Universite Press, 1957. Gerven Oei, Vincent W.J. van. *A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.* Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming. -Gerven Oei, Vincent W.J. van & El-Shafie El-Guzuuli. *The Miracle of Saint Mina*. Tirana: Uitgeverij, 2013. +Gerven Oei, Vincent W.J. van & El-Shafie El-Guzuuli. ![*The Miracle of Saint Mina.*](bib:c74149ed-2fb7-45ad-b5c2-63b1e14d57ff) Tirana: Uitgeverij, 2013. -Griffith, Francis Ll. *Karanòg: The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablûl and Karanog.* Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia 6. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1911. +Griffith, Francis Ll. ![*Karanòg: The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablûl and Karanog.*](bib:c3e86d86-b969-4992-815d-054f9a6c0eac) Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition to Nubia 6. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1911. -Griffith, Francis Ll. “Meroitic Studies IV: The Great Stela of Prince Akinizaz (Continued).” *Journal of Egyptian Archaeology* 4, nos. 2–3 (1917): pp. 159–173. +Griffith, Francis Ll. ![“Meroitic Studies IV: The Great Stela of Prince Akinizaz (Continued).”](bib:8ad008e4-4dd1-44af-8ef6-514c6492382e) *Journal of Egyptian Archaeology* 4, nos. 2–3 (1917): pp. 159–173. -Haspelmath, Martin. “The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-linguistic Generalizations.” *Language and Linguistics* 17, no. 3 (2016): pp. 291–319. [doi]({sc}): [10.1177/2397002215626895](https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002215626895). +Haspelmath, Martin. ![“The Serial Verb Construction: Comparative Concept and Cross-linguistic Generalizations.”](bib:ffb02ad9-624d-4368-a33d-337d4b26cad6) *Language and Linguistics* 17, no. 3 (2016): pp. 291–319. [doi]({sc}): [10.1177/2397002215626895](https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002215626895). Hintze, Fritz. *Beiträge zur meroitischen Grammatik.* Meroitica 3. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1979. -Hintze, Fritz. “Some Problems of Meroitic Philology.” In *Sudan im Altertum: 1. Internationale Tagung für meroitistische Forschungen in Berlin 1971,* edited by Fritz Hintze. Meroitica 1 (1973): pp. 321-336. +Hintze, Fritz. ![“Some Problems of Meroitic Philology.”](bib:bbc9d35d-def5-485b-afcf-0139ee6daac8) In *Sudan im Altertum: 1. Internationale Tagung für meroitistische Forschungen in Berlin 1971,* edited by Fritz Hintze. Meroitica 1 (1973): pp. 321–336. -Hofmann, Inge. *Material für eine meroitische Grammatik.* Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981. +Hofmann, Inge. ![*Material für eine meroitische Grammatik.*](bib:e14847bd-2562-46d2-9fe4-05a8b266a1d7) Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien 16. Vienna: Afro-Pub, 1981. -Jacquesson, François. *Les personnes. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique.* Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2008. +Jacquesson, François. ![*Les personnes. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique.*](bib:13676fec-abcc-4816-9a56-b4de42864eac) Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2008. Jakobi, Angelika. *Kordofan Nubian: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study.* Unpublished manuscript, 2001. Jakobi Angelika. “The Nubian Subject Pronouns.” Paper presented to the 14th Nilo-Saharan Linguistics Colloquium, Vienna (hand-out), 2019. -Jakobi, Angelika. “Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).” *Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung* 70 (2017): pp. 117–142. +Jakobi, Angelika. ![“Verbal Number and Transitivity in Karko (Kordofan Nubian).”](bib:c2e94b42-901e-44a4-a143-6bde5e2271cf) *Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung* 70 (2017): pp. 117–142. Jakobi, Angelika, Ali Ibrahim & Gumma Ibrahim Gulfan, “Verbal Number and Grammatical Relations in Tagle.” In *Proceedings of the 2nd Nuba Mountain Languages Conference, Paris 2014,* edited by Nicolas Quint and Stefano Manfredi. Forthcoming. -Khalil, Mohamed K. “The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin.” *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 59–71. +Khalil, Mohamed K. ![“The Verbal Plural Marker in Nobiin.”](bib:d49f8a89-7fff-4de7-bab6-b8ce57cb6db6) *Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies* 2 (2015): pp. 59–71. Kitchen, Kenneth A. *Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II.* Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999. @@ -1229,60 +1244,60 @@ Kuckertz, J. “Amanakhareqerema: A Meroitic King of the 1st Century AD.” *Der Loprieno, Antonio. “The ‘King’s Novel’.” In *Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms,* edited by Antonio Loprieno. Leiden: Brill, 1996: pp. 277–295. -Lukas, Johannes. “Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai (aus Nachtigal’s Nachlaß).” *Mitteilungen der Ausland-Hochschule an der Universität Berlin, dritte Abteilung. Afrikanische Studien* 41 (1938): pp. 171–246. +Lukas, Johannes. ![“Die Sprache der Sungor in Wadai (aus Nachtigal’s Nachlaß).”](bib:0cc6938e-b4fe-446d-9c40-5267dbee60c8) *Mitteilungen der Ausland-Hochschule an der Universität Berlin, dritte Abteilung. Afrikanische Studien* 41 (1938): pp. 171–246. -Millet, Nicholas B. “The Kharamadoye Inscription.” *Meroitic Newsletter* 13 (1973): pp. 31–49. +Millet, Nicholas B. ![“The Kharamadoye Inscription.”](bib:d32392b5-5c09-4584-b2f0-1650ccc8fae4) *Meroitic Newsletter* 13 (1973): pp. 31–49. -Millet, Nicholas B. “The Kharamadoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited.” *Meroitic Newsletter* 30 (2003): pp. 57–72. +Millet, Nicholas B. ![“The Kharamandoye Inscription (MI 94) Revisited.”](bib:58187d0d-da04-4e6f-bf69-d98e1b47ce4d) *Meroitic Newsletter* 30 (2003): pp. 57–72. -Norton, Russell. “Number in Ama Verbs.” *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–93. +Norton, Russell. ![“Number in Ama Verbs.”](bib:1892def2-7fbf-46ac-88ad-8dbb288c7e5a) *Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages* 10 (2012): pp. 75–93. Peust, Carsten. *Das Napatanische. Ein Ägyptischer Dialekt aus dem Nubien des späten ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. Texte, Glossar, Grammatik.* Göttingen: Peust & Gutschmid, 1999. -Reinisch, Leo. *Die Barea-Sprache.* Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1874. +Reinisch, Leo. ![*Die Barea-Sprache.*](bib:56923e0c-c71c-4f98-ba96-755a2fae8842) Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1874. -Rilly, Claude. “Deux exemples de décrets amulétiques oraculaires en méroïtique: les ostraca REM 1317/1168 et REM 1319 de Shokan.” *Meroitic Newsletter* 27 (2000): pp. 99–118. +Rilly, Claude. ![“Deux exemples de décrets amulétiques oraculaires en méroïtique: les ostraca REM 1317/1168 et REM 1319 de Shokan.”](bib:b42c2b81-9813-4fef-b9b7-dc1d5e17e9c6) *Meroitic Newsletter* 27 (2000): pp. 99–118. Rilly, Claude. “Graffiti for Gods and Kings: The Meroitic Secondary Inscriptions of Musawwarat Es-Sufra: A Preliminary Study.” *Der Antike Sudan* 31 (forthcoming). Rilly, Claude. “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung.” In *Histoire et Civilisations du Soudan. De la préhistoire à nos jours,* edited by Olivier Cabon. Paris: Soleb, 2017: pp. 25–445. -Rilly, Claude. *La langue du Royaume de Méroé: Un panorama de la plus ancienne culture écrite d'Afrique subsaharienne.* Paris: Champion, 2007. +Rilly, Claude. ![*La langue du Royaume de Méroé: Un panorama de la plus ancienne culture écrite d'Afrique subsaharienne.*](bib:f5ca39d3-8981-4729-9d5d-a3d14a7e2b8b) Paris: Champion, 2007. -Rilly, Claude. *Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.* Leuven: Peeters, 2010. +Rilly, Claude. ![*Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique.*](bib:2ca95718-79e8-40cd-939a-5dd0e3bbd07e) Leuven: Peeters, 2010. -Rilly, Claude. “‘Les chouettes ont des oreilles’. L’inscription méroïtique hiéroglyphique d’el-Hobagi REM 1222.” In *La pioche et la plume. Autour du Soudan, du Liban et de la Jordanie. Hommages archéologiques à Patrice Lenoble,* edited by Vincent Rondot, Frédéric Alpi & François Villeneuve. Paris: Presses de l'université Paris-Sorbonne, 2011: pp. 481–499. +Rilly, Claude. ![“‘Les chouettes ont des oreilles’. L’inscription méroïtique hiéroglyphique d’el-Hobagi REM 1222.”](bib:256121f6-25bf-42b1-a585-347ad0959b5a) In *La pioche et la plume. Autour du Soudan, du Liban et de la Jordanie. Hommages archéologiques à Patrice Lenoble,* edited by Vincent Rondot, Frédéric Alpi & François Villeneuve. Paris: Presses de l'université Paris-Sorbonne, 2011: pp. 481–499. Rilly, Claude. *Répertoire d’épigraphie méroïtique. Analyse des inscriptions publiées. Tome IV. REM 0001 à REM 0073.* Habilitation Thesis, École Pratique des Hautes Études. Paris, 2018. Rilly, Claude. “The Meroitic Inscriptions of Temple Naga 200.” In Josefine Kuckertz, *Naga: Temple 200 – Wall Decoration.* Berlin: Ugarit Verlag, forthcoming: pp. 283–328. -Rilly, Claude. “The Wadi Howar Diaspora and Its Role in the Spread of East Sudanic Languages from the Fourth to the First Millenia BCE.” In *Reconstruction et classification généalogique: tendances actuelles,* edited by Konstantin Pozdniakov. Paris: Faits de Langue, 2016: pp. 151–163. +Rilly, Claude. ![“The Wadi Howar Diaspora and Its Role in the Spread of East Sudanic Languages from the Fourth to the First Millenia BCE.”](bib:69f65bbb-d820-4147-aa87-a49ab63c594a) In *Reconstruction et classification généalogique: tendances actuelles,* edited by Konstantin Pozdniakov. Paris: Faits de Langue, 2016: pp. 151–163. -Rilly, Claude. “Upon Hintze's Shoulders: Today's Challenges in the Translation of Meroitic.” *Der Antike Sudan* 28 (2017): pp. 25–33. +Rilly, Claude. ![“Upon Hintze's Shoulders: Today's Challenges in the Translation of Meroitic.”](bib:cd26e243-b00e-4909-ba80-4d8aec90197a) *Der Antike Sudan* 28 (2017): pp. 25–33. -Rilly, Claude & Vincent Francigny. “Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011.” *Sudan & Nubia* 16 (2012): pp. 60–71. +Rilly, Claude & Vincent Francigny. ![“Excavations of the French Archaeological Mission in Sedeinga, Campaign 2011.”](bib:83be83df-8ae9-404c-bae0-7a997522ba86) *Sudan & Nubia* 16 (2012): pp. 60–71. -Rilly, Claude & Vincent Francigny. “Closer to the Ancestors: Excavations of the French Mission in Sedeinga 2013–2017.” *Sudan & Nubia* 22 (2018): pp. 65–74. +Rilly, Claude & Vincent Francigny. ![“Closer to the Ancestors: Excavations of the French Mission in Sedeinga 2013–2017.”](bib:c0cca1b6-f1b5-44db-977a-d39fa2e96250) *Sudan & Nubia* 22 (2018): pp. 65–74. -Schenkel, Wolfgang. “Meroitisches und Barya-Verb: Versuch einer Bestimmung der Tempusbildung der Meroitischen.” *Meroitic Newsletter* 11 (1972): pp. 1–16. +Schenkel, Wolfgang. !“[Meroitisches und Barya-Verb: Versuch einer Bestimmung der Tempusbildung der Meroitischen.”](bib:3e5bce37-1c4a-4b0d-b501-6e3a4952a97c) *Meroitic Newsletter* 11 (1972): pp. 1–16. -Schenkel, Wolfgang. “Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte.” *Meroitic Newsletter* 12 (1973): pp. 2–22. +Schenkel, Wolfgang. ![“Zur Struktur des Verbalkomplexes in den Schlußformel der meroitischen Totentexte.”](bib:dd904845-ed58-454c-9a2a-83ea244ba1c8) *Meroitic Newsletter* 12 (1973): pp. 2–22. -Spalinger, Anthony. “Königsnovelle and Performance.” In *Times, Signs and Pyramids: Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday,* edited by Vivienne G. Callender et al. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University of Prague, 2011: pp. 351-374. +Spalinger, Anthony. “Königsnovelle and Performance.” In *Times, Signs and Pyramids: Studies in Honour of Miroslav Verner on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday,* edited by Vivienne G. Callender et al. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University of Prague, 2011: pp. 351–374. -Stevenson, Roland. *Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).* Unpublished typescript, 1938. +Stevenson, Roland. ![*Grammar of the Nyimang Language (Nuba Mountains).*](bib:5d589571-e485-4ed7-8c2e-01b2091c0349) Unpublished typescript, 1938. -Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. “The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.” *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5-64. +Stevenson, Roland, Franz Rottland & Angelika Jakobi. ![“The Verb in Nyimang and Dinik.”](bib:976903a7-940f-4513-913f-aa8c060cfed1) *Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere* 32 (1992): pp. 5–64. -Thompson, E. David. “Nera.” In *The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1976: pp. 484–494. +Thompson, E. David. ![“Nera.”](bib:e69dc118-553c-4e3b-9e42-0041275bc01c) In *The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia,* edited by M. Lionel Bender. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1976: pp. 484–494. -Vanhove, Martine. *Le bedja.* Leuven: Peeters, 2017. +Vanhove, Martine. ![*Le bedja.*](bib:83967421-5ec9-4700-bc1e-832762b73c4c) Leuven: Peeters, 2017. -Weiss, Doris. *Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du maba.* PhD Thesis, Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 2009. +Weiss, Doris. ![*Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du maba.*](bib:1cf0e83e-6814-4b62-b827-20f14854c680) PhD Thesis, Université Lumière-Lyon 2, 2009. -Werner, Roland. *Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Pho­no­logie, Tonologie und Morphologie.* Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987. +Werner, Roland. ![*Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Pho­no­logie, Tonologie und Morphologie.*](bib:d5354ede-90ab-4f7b-baa2-488cfbbf06ec) Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 1987. -Werner, Roland. *Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).* Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. +Werner, Roland. ![*Tìdn-áal: A Study of Midob (Darfur-Nubian).*](bib:56735ece-24da-4960-9101-ba484f7e57f7) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993. -Zibelius, Karola. *Der Löwentempel von Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan). IV: Die Inschriften.* Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1983. +Zibelius, Karola. ![*Der Löwentempel von Naq‘a in der Butana (Sudan). IV: Die Inschriften.*](bib:4ce50a0a-2d4c-4b91-9f49-cbdfe84bc77b) Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1983. diff --git a/content/article/starostin.md b/content/article/starostin.md index ff99978..88f4d87 100644 --- a/content/article/starostin.md +++ b/content/article/starostin.md @@ -113,14 +113,14 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “bird”: N *kawar-ti*, K *kawir-te*, D *kawɪr-tɛ* (= M *àːbéd-dí*, B *kwar-ti*, etc.). * “bite”: N *àc-*, K/D *acc-* (= M *àcc-*, Dl *aɟ*, etc.). * “black”: N *úrúm*, K/D *urumm*- (= M *údí*, B *úːdè*, Dl *uri*, etc.). ◊ The Nile-Nubian form is an original nominal derivate (*\*ur-um* “darkness”) from the adjectival stem *\*ur*- “black.” -* “bone”: N *gìsìr*, K *kiːd*, D *kɪhɪːd* (= M *ə̀ːdí*, B *kìzídì*, etc.). ◊ Voiced *g-* in Nile-Nubian is irregular, possibly as a result of assimilation (← *\*kizir*) or contamination.[^13] +* “bone”: N *gìsìr*, K *kiːd*, D *kɪhɪːd* (= M *ə̀ːdí*, B *kìzídì*, etc.). ◊ Voiced *g-* in Nile-Nubian is irregular, possibly as a result of assimilation (< *\*kizir*) or contamination.[^13] * “breast”: N *óg*, K/D *og* (= M *ə́ː*, B *ogi*, Dl *ɔki*, etc.). * “claw/nail”: N *sun-ti*, K *sutti*, D *sun-tɪ* (= M *súŋún-dí*, B *sun-di*, etc.). * “cold”: N *ór-kí*, K *oroːke-l*, D *oroːfɛ-l* (= Wali *ór-kō*, Debri *worr-uŋ*, etc.). * “die”: N *dí-*, K/D *diː* (= M *tíː-*, B *ti-n-*, Dl *ti*, etc.). * “drink”: N *ní-*, K/D *niː* (= M *tìː-*, B *ɲiː*, Dl *di*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ni-* with regular denasalization in M and Hill Nubian languages. -* “ear”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug* (= Dl *ulɟe*, M *úlgí*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ulg-i*. The Nobiin form goes back to ON *ul(u)g-* and shows a specific phonetic development (*\*-lg-* → *-kk-*); the latter, however, can in no way be construed as an archaism. -* (?) “eye”: N *máːɲ* (= ON *maɲ-*), D *mɪssɪ*, K *missi* (= M *pì-dì*). ◊ A complicated case. The K/D forms perfectly correspond to M *pì-dì*, going back to PN *\*miC-ti*, where *-C-* is one of several consonants capable of triggering the lenition *\*-t- → -s-* in K/D. If *\*-C- = \*-ɲ-*, then the forms are further comparable with N *máːɲ*, and we are either dealing with a one-time vocalic dissimilation *\*miɲ → \*maɲ* in N or two independent assimilations (*\*maɲ → miɲ-*) in M and K/D, respectively. Alternately, the N form may be completely unrelated to the K/D–M isogloss, in which case the word should be moved to group III.2, since a separate form like *\*maɲ* “eye” would have no Common Nubian etymology of its own. +* “ear”: N *úkkí*, K/D *ulug* (= Dl *ulɟe*, M *úlgí*, etc.). ◊ From PN *\*ulg-i*. The Nobiin form goes back to ON *ul(u)g-* and shows a specific phonetic development (*\*-lg-* > *-kk-*); the latter, however, can in no way be construed as an archaism. +* (?) “eye”: N *máːɲ* (= ON *maɲ-*), D *mɪssɪ*, K *missi* (= M *pì-dì*). ◊ A complicated case. The K/D forms perfectly correspond to M *pì-dì*, going back to PN *\*miC-ti*, where *-C-* is one of several consonants capable of triggering the lenition *\*-t- > -s-* in K/D. If *\*-C- = \*-ɲ-*, then the forms are further comparable with N *máːɲ*, and we are either dealing with a one-time vocalic dissimilation *\*miɲ > \*maɲ* in N or two independent assimilations (*\*maɲ > miɲ-*) in M and K/D, respectively. Alternately, the N form may be completely unrelated to the K/D–M isogloss, in which case the word should be moved to group III.2, since a separate form like *\*maɲ* “eye” would have no Common Nubian etymology of its own. * “fire”: N *íːg*, K *iːg*, D *ɪːg* (= Dl *ike*, Debri *ika*; probably also B *uzug*, M *ússí*). ◊ The forms in B and M are comparable if the original stem is to be reconstructed as *\*usi-gi*, with regular elimination of intervocalic *\*-s-* in Hill and Nile Nubian. The vocalism is still problematic, but even without the B and M forms, parallels in Hill Nubian clearly show that the Nile-Nubian items represent an inherited archaism. * “foot”: N *óːy*, K *ossi*, D *oss(ɪ)* (= B *ose*, M *òttì*). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*oy(-ti)*. * “give”: N *tèː-r*, K *ti-r*, D *tɪ-r* (= M *tì-*, B *teː-n*, Dl *ti*, etc.). @@ -140,18 +140,18 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “not”: N *-mùːn*, K/D *-mun-* (= Dl *-min*, B *-m-*, etc.). ◊ A common Nubian negative verbal stem (interestingly, not attested in M, which instead uses the suffixal morpheme *-áː-* for negation, something that could be construed as an archaism and used as a serious argument against early separation of Nobiin). * “one”: N *wèːr ~ wèːl*, K *weːr*, D *wɛːr* (= M *pàr-*, B *meːl-*, Dl *be*, etc.). * “person”: N *íd* (= M *ír*, Dl *id*, etc.). ◊ The old Nubian root is largely replaced by Arabisms in K/D (K *zoːl*, D *adɛm*), but the word *ɪd* is still used in D as an archaism or in various idiomatic formations. -* “rain”: N *áwwí*, K *a-nn-essi* (← *\*aru-n-essi* “rain-waterʼ), D *aru* (= M *áré*, B *aːle*, Dl *are*, etc.). ◊ The development *\*-r- → -w-* in N is regular before *\*-i*.[^14] +* “rain”: N *áwwí*, K *a-nn-essi* (< *\*aru-n-essi* “rain-waterʼ), D *aru* (= M *áré*, B *aːle*, Dl *are*, etc.). ◊ The development *\*-r- > -w-* in N is regular before *\*-i*.[^14] * “red”: N *géːl*, K *geːle*, D *gɛːlɛ* (= M *kéːlé*, B *keːle*, Dl *kele*, etc.). * “sand”: N *síw*, K *siːw*, D *sɪu* (= Dl *šu-d*, Debri *šu-du*, etc.). * “see”: N *nèːl*, K/D *nal* (= M *kə̀l-*, B *ell-*, Dl *gel*, Kadaru *ŋeli*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋali-*. * “sit”: (a) N *àːg-*, K/D *aːg* (= M *àːg-*, Dl *ak-i*, etc.); (b) N *tìːg-*, K *teːg*, D *tɛːg* (= M *tə́g-*). ◊ Two roots with very close semantics, both easily reconstructible back to PN. * “sleep”: N *nèːr-*, K *neːr*, D *nɛːr* (= M *kèrà-*, B *neːri*, Dl *ɟer*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ɲɛːr-*. * “star”: N *wìnɟì*, K *wissi*, D *wɪssɪ* (= M *òɲè-dì*, B *waːɲ-di*, Kadaru *wonɔ-ntu*, etc.). ◊ There are some problems with the reconstruction, but it is possible that all forms go back to PN *\*wiɲ- ~ \*waɲ-*; at the very least, *\*wiɲ-ti* “star” is definitely reconstructible for Proto-Nile-Nubian. -* “sun”: N *màšà* (= ON *mašal-*), K *masil*, D *masɪl* (= M *pàssàr*). ◊ The isogloss with M confirms PN status, although some phonetic peculiarities (such as the irregular *-š-* in N) as well as the attestation of the term *maša ~ masa* in Meroitic, where it denotes a supreme deity[^sun] indirectly suggest a possible areal isogloss; if so, an alternate candidate for PN “sun” would be *\*eːs-* → B *iːzi*, Dl *eɟ* “sun,” further related to M *èːsì* “heat; midday,” K *eːs* id., D *ɛːs* “afternoon.” In either case, N still aligns with K/D rather than anything else. +* “sun”: N *màšà* (= ON *mašal-*), K *masil*, D *masɪl* (= M *pàssàr*). ◊ The isogloss with M confirms PN status, although some phonetic peculiarities (such as the irregular *-š-* in N) as well as the attestation of the term *maša ~ masa* in Meroitic, where it denotes a supreme deity[^sun] indirectly suggest a possible areal isogloss; if so, an alternate candidate for PN “sun” would be *\*eːs-* > B *iːzi*, Dl *eɟ* “sun,” further related to M *èːsì* “heat; midday,” K *eːs* id., D *ɛːs* “afternoon.” In either case, N still aligns with K/D rather than anything else. * you (sg.): N *ì-r*, K *e-r*, D *ɛ-r* (= M *íː-n*, B *e-di*, Dl *a*, Karko *yā*, etc.). ◊ Although all the forms are related (going back to PN *\*i-*), N is noticeably closer to K/D in terms of morphological structure (with the direct stem marker *\*-r*). * “tongue”: N *nàr*, K *ned*, D *nɛd* (= M *kàda-ŋì*, B *nat-ti*, Dl *ɟale*, Debri *ɲal-do*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ɲal(T)*-.[^tongue] Interestingly, the ON equivalent tame- (no parallels in other languages) is completely different — the only case on the list where ON differs not only from N, but from all other Nubian languages as well. * “tooth”: N *nìːd*, K *nel*, D *nɛl* (= M *kə̀d-dì*, B *ɲil-di*, Dl *ɟili*, etc.). ◊ All forms reflect PN *\*ɲəl-*. -* “two”: N *úwwó*, K *owwi*, D *owwɪ* (= M *ə́d-dí*, B *ul-ug*, Dl *ore*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*awri*; the unusual cluster *\*-wr-* is responsible for the unusual development *\*-r- → -w-* already in Proto-Nile-Nubian (rather than just in N), and is actually seen explicitly in the extinct and very poorly attested Haraza Nubian: *auri-yah* “two.”[^15] +* “two”: N *úwwó*, K *owwi*, D *owwɪ* (= M *ə́d-dí*, B *ul-ug*, Dl *ore*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*awri*; the unusual cluster *\*-wr-* is responsible for the unusual development *\*-r- > -w-* already in Proto-Nile-Nubian (rather than just in N), and is actually seen explicitly in the extinct and very poorly attested Haraza Nubian: *auri-yah* “two.”[^15] * “walk (go)”: N *ɟúù-*, K/D *ɟuː* (= M *sə́-r-*, Dl *šu*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*cuː-*. * “warm (hot)”: N *ɟùg*, K/D *ɟug-ri* (= M *sùːw*). ◊ From PN *\*cug-*. * “who”: N *nàːy*, K *niː*, D *nɪː* (= M *kə̀ː-rén*, B *neː-ta*, Dl *de*, etc.). ◊ All forms go back to PN *\*ŋə(y)*. @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “that”: N *mán*, K/D *man*. * “this”: N *in*, K *in*, D *ɪn*. ◊ The subsystems of deictic pronouns in M, B, and Hill Nubian are much less cohesive than in Nile-Nubian and do not allow for reliable reconstructions of any PN items that would be different from Nile-Nubian. * “what”: N *mìn*, K *min*, D *mɪn*. ◊ It is quite possible that the Nile-Nubian situation here is innovative, since all other branches agree on *\*na(i)-* as a better equivalent for PN “what?”: M *nèː-n*, B *na-ta*, Dl *na*, Karko *nái*, etc.[^16] -* “woman”: N *ìd-éːn*, K *eːn*, D *ɛːn*. ◊ Technically, this is not a fully exclusive Nile-Nubian isogloss — cf. B *eːn* “woman.” However, the main root for “woman” in Nubian is *\*il-* (ON *il-*, M *ìd-dì ← il-ti*, Dl *eli*, Karko *îl*, etc.); *\*eːn* is the common Nubian word for “mother,” which has, most likely, independently shifted to “woman” in general in modern Nile-Nubian languages and in B. N is particularly innovative in that respect, since it uses a compound formation: *ìd* “person” + *éːn* “mother.” +* “woman”: N *ìd-éːn*, K *eːn*, D *ɛːn*. ◊ Technically, this is not a fully exclusive Nile-Nubian isogloss — cf. B *eːn* “woman.” However, the main root for “woman” in Nubian is *\*il-* (ON *il-*, M *ìd-dì < il-ti*, Dl *eli*, Karko *îl*, etc.); *\*eːn* is the common Nubian word for “mother,” which has, most likely, independently shifted to “woman” in general in modern Nile-Nubian languages and in B. N is particularly innovative in that respect, since it uses a compound formation: *ìd* “person” + *éːn* “mother.” [^feather]: Khalil, *Wörterbuch der nubischen Spra­che,* p. 124. [^16]: In Starostin, *Языки Африки,* p. 92 I suggest that, since the regular reflex of PN *\*n-* in Hill Nubian is *d-*, both Nile-Nubian *\*min* and all the *na(i)*-like forms may go back to a unique PN stem *\*nwV-*; if so, the word should be moved to [I.1](#i1), but in any case this is still a common Nile-Nubian isogloss. @@ -187,11 +187,11 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e ### II.1. Potential K/D innovations {#ii1} -* “bark”: *àːcì* (= M *àccì-dì*). ◊ Possibly ← PN *\*aci* “bark, chaff.” As opposed to K/D *gabad* (no parallels in other languages). -* “fly”: *wáːy-ìr* (= B *maː-r*). ◊ May reflect PN *\*way-* “to fly” (*\*w- → m-* is regular in B). However, the corresponding form in D is *war* “to jump, leap, spring,” and typologically the development “jump” → “fly” is far more common than the reverse. Opposed to K *firr*, D *fɪrr* “to fly” with no parallels outside of Nile-Nubian. +* “bark”: *àːcì* (= M *àccì-dì*). ◊ Possibly < PN *\*aci* “bark, chaff.” As opposed to K/D *gabad* (no parallels in other languages). +* “fly”: *wáːy-ìr* (= B *maː-r*). ◊ May reflect PN *\*way-* “to fly” (*\*w- - m-* is regular in B). However, the corresponding form in D is *war* “to jump, leap, spring,” and typologically the development “jump” → “fly” is far more common than the reverse. Opposed to K *firr*, D *fɪrr* “to fly” with no parallels outside of Nile-Nubian. * “liver”: N *dìbèː* (= M *tèmmèɟí*). ◊ In D, the old word has been replaced by the Arabic borrowing *kɪbdaːd*. The isogloss between N and M allows to reconstruct PN *\*dib-* “liver.” -* (?) “night”: N *áwá* (= ON *oar-*). ◊ A rare case where K/D are clearly more innovative than N: K/D *ugu*ː “night” occasionally has the additional meaning “24 hours,” and further comparison with ON *uk-r- ~ uk-l-* “day,” K *ug-reːs*, D *ug-rɛːs*, N *ùg-réːs*, M *ùːd* (← *\*ugu-d*) id. suggests that “24 hours; day-night cycle” was the original meaning. On the other hand, N *áwá* is comparable with M *òːd* (← *\*awa-d*?) and could very well be the original PN equivalent. -* “skin”: N *náwá* (← *\*nawar*, cf. pl. *nàwàr-íː*; = B *noːr*, Dl *dor*, etc.). ◊ Opposed to K *aɟin*, D *aɟɪn* “skin, leather.” +* (?) “night”: N *áwá* (= ON *oar-*). ◊ A rare case where K/D are clearly more innovative than N: K/D *ugu*ː “night” occasionally has the additional meaning “24 hours,” and further comparison with ON *uk-r- ~ uk-l-* “day,” K *ug-reːs*, D *ug-rɛːs*, N *ùg-réːs*, M *ùːd* (< *\*ugu-d*) id. suggests that “24 hours; day-night cycle” was the original meaning. On the other hand, N *áwá* is comparable with M *òːd* (< *\*awa-d*?) and could very well be the original PN equivalent. +* “skin”: N *náwá* (< *\*nawar*, cf. pl. *nàwàr-íː*; = B *noːr*, Dl *dor*, etc.). ◊ Opposed to K *aɟin*, D *aɟɪn* “skin, leather.” ### II.2. Potential Synonymy in the Protolanguage @@ -202,13 +202,13 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e ### III.1. Nobiin-exclusive Items with a Nubian Etymology {#iii1} * “blood”: N *díːs* (= ON *dis-*). ◊ Related to K *des*, D *dɛs*, M *tèssì* “oil; liquid fat; butterʼ; the meaning in N is clearly innovative, since the original PN root for “blood” is well distributed across non-Nile-Nubian lineages (M *ə̀ggə́r*, B *igir*, Dl *ogor*, etc.). -* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” → Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here). -* “hear”: N *úkké-èr* (= ON *ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-*). ◊ Transparent derivation from *ulug* “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K *giɟ-ir*, D *gɪɟ-ir*) and Hill Nubian (Dl *ki-er-* etc.) ← PN *\*gi(ɟ)-*. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative. -* “meat”: N *áríɟ*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent for “flesh, meat” is *gad-*, with a likely etymological parallel in M *kàdì* “meat without bones.” As for *áríɟ*, the shape of this word is reminiscent of an adjectival derivate (cf. *fáríɟ* “thick, heavyʼ), making it comparable with K *aːre*, D *aːrɛ* “inside, interior.” The most common Nubian equivalent for “meat,” however, is *\*kosi ~ \*kosu* → K/D *kusu*, M *òsò-ŋí*, B *kozi*, Dl *kwaɟe*, etc. +* (?) “earth”: N *gùr* (= ON *gul- ~ gud-*). ◊ The same word is also found in D as *guː* “earth, ground, floor” and in K as *guː* “field, acre; earth (surface).” According to Werner, in modern Nobiin the meaning “earth = soil” is also expressed by the same root,[^earth] whereas ON *iskit-* “earth; dust” - Nobiin *ìskíːd* corresponds to the narrower meaning “dust” in Wernerʼs dictionary.[^earth2] It is perfectly possible, however, that this is all simply a byproduct of inaccurate semantic glossing and that the situation in Nobiin is actually exactly the same as in K/D. In this case, the word has to be moved to [I.2](#i2) (or [I.1](#i1), if B *izzi-di* “earth” also belongs here). +* “hear”: N *úkké-èr* (= ON *ulg-ir- ~ ulg-ar- ~ ulk-ir-*). ◊ Transparent derivation from *ulug* “ear.” The old verbal root “hear” is present in K/D (K *giɟ-ir*, D *gɪɟ-ir*) and Hill Nubian (Dl *ki-er-* etc.) < PN *\*gi(ɟ)-*. The situation in Old Nubian/Nobiin is seemingly innovative. +* “meat”: N *áríɟ*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent for “flesh, meat” is *gad-*, with a likely etymological parallel in M *kàdì* “meat without bones.” As for *áríɟ*, the shape of this word is reminiscent of an adjectival derivate (cf. *fáríɟ* “thick, heavyʼ), making it comparable with K *aːre*, D *aːrɛ* “inside, interior.” The most common Nubian equivalent for “meat,” however, is *\*kosi ~ \*kosu* - K/D *kusu*, M *òsò-ŋí*, B *kozi*, Dl *kwaɟe*, etc. * (?) “root”: N *ɟúː*. ◊ Perhaps related to D *ɟuː* “nether stone for grinding,” K *ɟuː* “hand mill” (if the original meaning was “bottom, foundation"), but the semantic link is weak. Notably, the word is not attested in ON where the equivalent for “root” is *dulist-* (no etymology). The most common form for “root” in Nubian is *\*ir-* (M *ír-dí*, Dl *ir-tad*, etc.). * “say”: N *íːg-ìr* (= ON *ig-ir* “tell"). ◊ Same as D *iːg* “tell, narrate"; in N, this seems to have become the main equivalent for “say.” Other ON words with similar meanings include the verbs *pes-* (direct speech marker), *il-* (“speak,” “tell") and *we-* (very rare, probably a K/D dialectism); the latter is the common Nubian equivalent for “say” (cf. K *weː*, D *wɛː*, Dl *fe*, Kadaru *wei*, etc.). * “swim”: N *kúcc-ìr*. ◊ Not attested in ON; phonetically corresponds to D *kuɟ-* “to be above,” *kuɟ-ur-* “to place above, set above,” *kuc-cɛg-* “to mount, ride.” If the etymology is correct, the semantic development can only be unidirectional (“to be on top/on the surface” → “to swim") and the meaning in N is clearly secondary. That said, the word “swim” in general is highly unstable in Nubian languages (almost every idiom has its own equivalent). -* “tree”: N *kóy* (= ON *koir-*). ◊ Comparable with D *koɪd* “a k. of jujube (*Ziziphus spina-christi*)”; if the etymology is correct, a secondary generalization of the meaning to “tree (gen.)” in N would perfectly agree with the fact that a much better candidate for PN “tree” is *\*pər* → Dl *hor*, Dair *or*, Wali *fʊ́r*, K *ber* “wood,” D *bɛr* “wood” (the meaning “tree” in K/D, as in N, is expressed by an innovation: K *ɟowwi*, D *ɟoːwwɪ*, formerly “*Acacia nilotica*”). +* “tree”: N *kóy* (= ON *koir-*). ◊ Comparable with D *koɪd* “a k. of jujube (*Ziziphus spina-christi*)”; if the etymology is correct, a secondary generalization of the meaning to “tree (gen.)” in N would perfectly agree with the fact that a much better candidate for PN “tree” is *\*pər* - Dl *hor*, Dair *or*, Wali *fʊ́r*, K *ber* “wood,” D *bɛr* “wood” (the meaning “tree” in K/D, as in N, is expressed by an innovation: K *ɟowwi*, D *ɟoːwwɪ*, formerly “*Acacia nilotica*”). * “we”: N *ù:* (= ON *u-*). ◊ ON has two 1pl pronouns: *u-* and *e-r-*, the distinction between which is still a matter of debate; Browne, Werner, and others have suggested an old differentiation along the lines of inclusivity, but there is no general consensus on which of the two pronouns may have been inclusive and which one was exclusive. In any case, the two forms are in complementary distribution in modern Nile-Nubian languages: N only has *ùː*, K/D only have *a-r-*. On the external level, K/D forms are better supported (cf. M. *àː-dí*, B *a-di*), but forms cognate with N *ùː* are also occasionally found in Hill Nubian, e.g. Wali *ʊ̌ʔ*.[^we] Without sidetracking into in-depth discussion, it should be acknowledged that *ùː* may well be a PN archaism retained in N. [^earth]: Werner. *Grammatik des Nobiin,* p. 357. @@ -219,20 +219,20 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e * “dog”: N *múg* (= ON *mug-*). ◊ Not related to PN *\*bəl* (K *wel*, D *wɛl*, M *pə̀ːl*, B *mɛl*, DL *bol*, etc.); no parallels in other Nubian languages. * “dry”: N *sámá*. ◊ Not related to K *soww-od*, D *soww-ɛd* “dry” or their cognates in Hill Nubian (Debri *šua-du*, etc.). -* (?) “eat”: N *kàb-* (= ON *kap-*). ◊ ON shows dialectal variety: besides the more common *kap-*, there is also at least one hapax case of ON *kal-* “eat” = K/D *kal*. It is not entirely clear if the two roots are indeed unrelated: a scenario where ON *kap-*, N *kàb-* ← Nile-Nubian *\*kal-b-* (cf. such derived stems as D *kal-bu-* pass. “be eaten,” *kal-bɛːr* “eat to satisfactionʼ) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* ← PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative. +* (?) “eat”: N *kàb-* (= ON *kap-*). ◊ ON shows dialectal variety: besides the more common *kap-*, there is also at least one hapax case of ON *kal-* “eat” = K/D *kal*. It is not entirely clear if the two roots are indeed unrelated: a scenario where ON *kap-*, N *kàb-* < Nile-Nubian *\*kal-b-* (cf. such derived stems as D *kal-bu-* pass. “be eaten,” *kal-bɛːr* “eat to satisfactionʼ) cannot be ruled out. However, it would run into additional phonetic and morphological problems. From an external point of view, only K/D *kal* < PN *\*kɔl* has sufficient etymological backup; cf. Dl *kol*, M *ə̀l-* id. Regardless of etymologization, N *kàb-* is clearly innovative. * “fat”: N *sìlèː*. ◊ Not attested in ON; no parallels in any other languages. * “fish”: N *ángíssí*. ◊ Replaces ON *watto-*; neither of the two words has any clear parallels in K/D or any other Nubian languages. A possible, though questionable, internal etymology is “living in water” (from *aɲ-* “to live” + *\*essi* “water,” see notes on “water” below). * “full”: N *mídd-ìr* (= ON *medd- ~ midd-* “to be full/readyʼ). ◊ Possibly from an earlier *\*merid-* (this form is actually attested a few times in ON sources). The item is quite unstable in the Nubian group on the whole; the PN equivalent remains obscure. * (?) “good”: N *màs.* ◊ This word does not have a Nubian etymology; however, the older equivalent *gèn* (= ON *gen-*), mainly used in the modern language in the comparative sense (“better"), is clearly cognate with D *gɛn* “good, healthy” and further with such Hill Nubian items as Dl *ken*, Debri *kɛŋ* “good,” etc., going back to PN *\*gen-*. Were the semantic criteria to be relaxed, this item should have been moved to [I.1](#i1). * “hair”: N *šìgír-tí*. ◊ Not attested in ON. The form is similar to K *siːr* “hair,” but phonetic correspondences would be irregular (*\*-g-* should not be deleted in K). On the contrary, D *dɪl-tɪ* “hair” perfectly corresponds to M *tèː-dì*, B *dill-e*, Dl *tel-ti*, etc. and is reconstructible as PN *\*del-* or *\*dɛl-*. Forms in N and K would seem to be innovations — perhaps the result of separate borrowings from a common non-Nubian source. * “lie /down/”: N *fìyy-ìr* (= ON *pi-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. -* “mountain”: N *mùléː*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent is *naɟ-*. No parallels in other languages. Opposed to M *òːr*, B *kúːr*, Dl *kulí*, Karko *kúrù,* etc. ← PN *\*kur-* (in K/D this word was replaced by borrowings from Arabic). -* “name”: N *tàŋìs* (= ON *taŋis-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The most common Nubian equivalent for “name” is K *erri*, D *ɛrrɪ*, M *ə́rí*, B *erei*, Dl *or,* etc. ← PN *\*əri*. -* “new”: N *míríː* (= ON *miri-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “new” is K *eːr*, D *ɛr*, B *eːr*, Dl *er* ← PN *\*ɛːr*. -* “road”: N *dáwwí* (= ON *dawi- ~ dawu-*). ◊ Although it is likely that *dáwwí* ← *\*dari* (see “rain” above), the word is hardly directly related to K *darub*, D *darɪb*[^17] since the latter is transparently borrowed from Arabic darb-. A separate early borrowing into ON from the same source cannot be excluded, but it is also possible that the word has a completely different origin. +* “mountain”: N *mùléː*. ◊ Probably a recent innovation, since the ON equivalent is *naɟ-*. No parallels in other languages. Opposed to M *òːr*, B *kúːr*, Dl *kulí*, Karko *kúrù,* etc. < PN *\*kur-* (in K/D this word was replaced by borrowings from Arabic). +* “name”: N *tàŋìs* (= ON *taŋis-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The most common Nubian equivalent for “name” is K *erri*, D *ɛrrɪ*, M *ə́rí*, B *erei*, Dl *or,* etc. < PN *\*əri*. +* “new”: N *míríː* (= ON *miri-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “new” is K *eːr*, D *ɛr*, B *eːr*, Dl *er* < PN *\*ɛːr*. +* “road”: N *dáwwí* (= ON *dawi- ~ dawu-*). ◊ Although it is likely that *dáwwí* < *\*dari* (see “rain” above), the word is hardly directly related to K *darub*, D *darɪb*[^17] since the latter is transparently borrowed from Arabic darb-. A separate early borrowing into ON from the same source cannot be excluded, but it is also possible that the word has a completely different origin. * “seed”: N *kóɟìr* (= ON *koɟir-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “seed” is *\*ter-* (K *teːri*, D *tɛːrɪ*, Dl *ter-ti*). * “small”: N *kùdúːd*. ◊ No parallels in other languages, but the word is generally unstable throughout the entire family. -* “stand”: N *ménɟ-ìr*. ◊ Attested only once in ON (as *meɟɟ-*), where the usual equivalent for “stand” is *noɟ(ɟ)-*. The corresponding K/D stem is K *teːb*, D *tɛːb*, but a better candidate for PN “stand” is the isogloss between M *tèkk-ér-* and Dl *tek-er* ← PN *\*tek-*. +* “stand”: N *ménɟ-ìr*. ◊ Attested only once in ON (as *meɟɟ-*), where the usual equivalent for “stand” is *noɟ(ɟ)-*. The corresponding K/D stem is K *teːb*, D *tɛːb*, but a better candidate for PN “stand” is the isogloss between M *tèkk-ér-* and Dl *tek-er* < PN *\*tek-*. * “stone”: N *kìd* (= ON *kit-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “stone” is *\*kul-* (K/D *kulu*, M *ùllì*, B *kul-di*). * “tail”: N *ɟèlèw*. ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “tail” is *\*ɛːb* (K *eːw*, D *ɛːu*, M *èːmí*, Dl *ɛb*, etc.). The old vocabulary of Lepsius still gives aw as an alternate equivalent,[^18] meaning that *ɟèlèw* is clearly an innovation of unclear origin. (Possibly a concatenation of *\*ɛːb* with some different first root?). * “water”: N *ámán* (= ON *aman-*). ◊ No parallels in other languages. The common Nubian root for “water” is *\*əs-ti* (K *essi*, D *ɛssɪ*, M *ə́ːcí*, B *eɟi*, Dl *ɔti*, etc.). The innovative, rather than archaic, character of N *ámán* is clearly seen from the attestation of such idiomatic formations as *ès-kàlèː ~ às-kàlèː* “water wheel” and *màːɲ-éssí* “tear” (lit. “eye-water"); see also notes on the possible internal etymologization of “fish” above. The word *ámán* has frequently been compared to the phonetically identical common Berber equivalent for “water,” *\*ama-n*,[^19] but the inability to find any additional Nobiin–Berber parallels with the same degree of phonetic and semantic similarity make the comparison less reliable than one could hope for. @@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ In order to resolve this issue, below I offer a concise and slightly condensed e ### III.3. Nobiin-exclusive Recent Borrowings {#iii3} -* “cloud”: N *géːm* ← Arabic *ʁayma-*. Replaces ON *niɟɟ-*, a common Nubian root (= D *niccɪ*, M *tèccì-dì*, B *naːsi-di*, etc.). -* “yellow”: N *asfar* ← Arabic *ʼaṣfar*. The word in general is highly unstable in Nubian and not reconstructible for PN. +* “cloud”: N *géːm* < Arabic *ʁayma-*. Replaces ON *niɟɟ-*, a common Nubian root (= D *niccɪ*, M *tèccì-dì*, B *naːsi-di*, etc.). +* “yellow”: N *asfar* < Arabic *ʼaṣfar*. The word in general is highly unstable in Nubian and not reconstructible for PN. ## Analysis of the Data @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ In *Языки Африки,* an alternate hypothesis was put forward, expanding * *kìd* “stone” — cf. Luo *kidi*, Shilluk *kit*, etc. “stone"; * *ɟèlèw* “tail” — cf. Nuer *ɟual*, Dinka *yɔl*, Mabaan *yilɛ*, etc. “tail.” -Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- → m-* before a following labial vowel in Nobiin). These parallels, although still sparse, constitute by far the largest single group of matches between the "pre-Nile Nubian substrate" and a single linguistic family (Nilotic), making this line of future research seem promising for the future — although they neither conclusively prove the Nilotic nature of this substrate, nor eliminate the possibility of several substrate layers with different affiliation. +Additionally, Nobiin *múg* “dog” is similar to East Nilotic *\*-ŋɔk-*[^27] and Kalenjin *\*ŋoːk*,[^28] assuming the possibility of assimilation (*\*ŋ- - m-* before a following labial vowel in Nobiin). These parallels, although still sparse, constitute by far the largest single group of matches between the "pre-Nile Nubian substrate" and a single linguistic family (Nilotic), making this line of future research seem promising for the future — although they neither conclusively prove the Nilotic nature of this substrate, nor eliminate the possibility of several substrate layers with different affiliation. [^26]: Thelwall, "Lexicostatistical Relations be­twe­en Nu­bian, Daju and Dinka," pp. 273–274. [^27]: Vossem, *The Eastern Nilotes,* p. 354. @@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ Starostin, George. ![*Языки Африки. Опыт построения л Thelwall, Robin. !["A Birgid Vocabulary List and Its Links with Daju."](bib:9ed84dac-bac2-4595-93ef-86cd0ea9b735) In *Gedenkschrift Gustav Nachtigall 1874–1974,* edited by Herbert Gansl­mayr and Hermann Jungraithmayr. Bremen: Übersee-Museum, 1977: pp. 197–210. -Thelwall, Robin. ![“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.”](bib:63cb7f06-ce5d-4ff3-9de0-93e92ae3f36a) In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2-6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265-286. +Thelwall, Robin. ![“Lexicostatistical Relations between Nubian, Daju and Dinka.”](bib:63cb7f06-ce5d-4ff3-9de0-93e92ae3f36a) In *Etudes Nubiennes, Colloque de Chantilly, 2–6 Juillet 1975,* edited by Jean Leclant and Jean Vercouttier. Cairo: IFAO, 1978: pp. 265–286. Vasilyev, Mikhail & George Starostin. !["Лексикостатистическая классификация нубийских языков: к вопросу о нильско-нубийской языковой общности"](bib:18159601-88bc-4ac5-ab23-4b9b5c3ce6eb) ["Lexicostatistical Classification of the Nubian languages and the Issue of the Nile-Nubian Genetic Unity"]. *Journal of Language Relationship* 12 (2014): 51–72. diff --git a/content/author/clauderilly.md b/content/author/clauderilly.md index d92e20a..7c389bd 100644 --- a/content/author/clauderilly.md +++ b/content/author/clauderilly.md @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ title: Claude Rilly # Biography -Something about the author. \ No newline at end of file +Claude Rilly is a senior researcher in CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique) in Paris. Since 2019, he also hold the professorship in “Meroitic Language and Civilisation” at the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes, (Paris – Sorbonne). From 2009 to 2014, he was director of the French Archaeological Unit in Khartoum (SFDAS). Since 2008, he leads the French Archaeological Mission of Sedeinga, in Sudanese Nubia. He has written three monographs on Meroitic language: *La langue du Royaume de Meroé* (2007), *Le méroïtique et sa famille lingustique* (2010), and *The Meroitic Language and Writing System* (with A. de Voogt, 2012), as well as a comprehensive “Histoire du Soudan, des origines à la chute du sultanat Fung” (2017). diff --git a/content/issue/dotawo7.md b/content/issue/dotawo7.md index 08878df..da59411 100644 --- a/content/issue/dotawo7.md +++ b/content/issue/dotawo7.md @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne. "‘Nile-Nubianʼ Recon­sidered." In *Topics in Nilo- Bender, Lionel M. *The East Sudanic Languages: Lexicon and Phonology.* Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 2005. -Bodó, Balázs. "Own Nothing." In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 16-24. +Bodó, Balázs. "Own Nothing." In *Guerrilla Open Access,* ed. Memory of the World. Coventry: Post Office Press, Rope Press, and Memory of the World, 2018: pp. 16–24. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. “Nilo-Saharan.” In *The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology,* edited by Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: pp. 591–607. From 5aeb80cfeede535fccd2eb4be2d74b7f84202082 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: 4nubianstudies Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 02:42:01 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Update 'PUBLISH.trigger.md' --- PUBLISH.trigger.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/PUBLISH.trigger.md b/PUBLISH.trigger.md index 7e60981..9735ec7 100644 --- a/PUBLISH.trigger.md +++ b/PUBLISH.trigger.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Don't forget to click on "Comit Changes" to commit the changes. ``` _ _ _ New changes after this _ _ _ -vincent... +vincent.... marcell. ``` \ No newline at end of file